And disturbingly, the prevalence of sociopathy in the United States seems to be increasing. The 1991 Epidemiologic Catchment Area study, sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, reported that in the fifteen years preceding the study, the prevalence of antisocial personality disorder had nearly doubled among the young in America, It would be difficult, closing in on impossible, to explain such a dramatically rapid shift in terms of genetics or neurobiology.

Male sociopaths do better with women. This is indisputable. If sociopathy is increasing in America, then we must look to the foundational market of human interpersonal relations — the sexual market — to discover the source of this increasing sociopathy. Quite simply, if more women are more often rewarding sociopaths with their sex, then the supply of sociopathy will increase.

Under what conditions would women swoon for sociopaths? Very harsh conditions, for one. An emotionless Machiavellian is a useful mate to have when survival is constantly tested. Another social condition that probably redounds to the benefit of sociopaths is one in which women are incentivized, by a coddling state and by women’s own economic self-sufficiency, to favor the love of maximum tingle generating cads over comfy cozy betas.

Tellingly for the currently cratering US, diversity may play a crucial role in assisting the rise of the sociopaths.

In this opinion he is joined by theorists who propose that North American culture, which holds individualism as a central value, tends to foster the development of antisocial behavior, and also to disguise it. In other words, in America, the guiltless manipulation of other people “blends” with social expectations to a much greater degree than it would in China or other more group-centered societies.

I believe there is a shinier side of this coin, too, one that begs the question of why certain cultures seem to encourage prosocial behavior. So much against the odds, how is it that some societies have a positive impact on incipient sociopaths, who are born with an inability to process interpersonal emotions in the usual way? I would like to suggest that the overriding belief systems of certain cultures encourage born sociopaths to compensate cognitively for what they are missing emotionally. In contrast with our extreme emphasis on individualism and personal control, certain cultures, many in East Asia, dwell theologically on the interrelatedness of all living things.

Interestingly, this value is also the basis of conscience, which is an intervening sense of obligation rooted in a sense of connectedness. If an individual does not, or if neurologically he cannot, experience his connection to others in an emotional way, perhaps a culture that insists on connectedness as a matter of belief can instill a strictly cognitive understanding of interpersonal obligation.

An intellectual grasp of one’s duties to others is not the same attribute as the powerfully directive emotion we call conscience, but perhaps it is enough to extract prosocial behavior from at least some individuals who would have behaved only in antisocial ways had they been living in a society that emphasized individualism rather than interrelatedness. Though they lack an internal mechanism that tells them they are connected to others, the larger culture insists to them that they are so connected — as opposed to our culture, which informs them resoundingly that their ability to act guiltlessly on their own behalf is the ultimate advantage. This would explain why a Western family by itself cannot redeem a born sociopath. There are too many other voices in the larger society implying that his approach to the world is correct.

As Robert Putnam has discovered, ethnic and racial diversity reduces trust and social cohesion. Radically heterogeneous societies lose their aura of connectedness. Within this atomized, unraveled milieu, sociopaths thrive. They thrive not only because any communitarian brakes on their behavior are removed, but also because the culture begins to value and exalt the very special talents of the sociopath. This is an unavoidable transition when people feel unmoored from a larger social family, and adopt a pathologically individualist “look out for #1” attitude to life in response to the vague but palpably ominous threat of rainbow fauxalitions.

To be a high level player, you have to be blessed with a touch of sociopathy. Without that trait for timely detachment, you will empathize too much with the particular needs and reproductive goals of women. That distracting emotional resonance will hinder your ability to hurt a woman’s feelings and, sadly you’ll discover, rare is the woman who joyfully surrenders her body to a man who is careful to spare her feelings.

So sociopathy has its privileges. But no nation of sociopaths ever put a man on the moon.

GBFM is not a wise man packaging his wisdom in some form of internet-haiku. He is a fan of game (the worst kind – the kind PUAs teach to bed bar skanks). He doesn’t know his Bible (OT or NT), and spends an inordinate amount of time with juvenile sex-talk and gibberish. And, as you can see by scrolling back through his comments on this very thread, he engages in some serious hero-worship of Heartiste, who is one of the biggest proponents of whore-mongering on the internet.

Frankly, I don’t expect a direct response out of him at all. He’s beat, and he knows it. He’ll probably do one of three things:

1) Stop posting to this thread.
2) Copy-and-paste the same stuff he always uses.
3) Type more gibberish.

That’s all he has. It’s pretty much all he ever has. The people who think GBFM is some shaman speaking great profundities hidden in elaborate word-pictures reminds me of those art critics who see a pile of dog dung on a sidewalk in front of an art gallery and think it’s a statement on “The Existential Meaninglessness of Post-Industrial Intersectionalism.”

Nope – it’s just a pile of crap.”

zlzozoozozzoozl

long story short, the CHRUCHIANS exailed THE LAW OF MOSES form tehir chruchcian CHRUCHERSZ–the LAW OF MOSES WHICH JESUS CAME TO FULFILL. They exiled it, and their woman all went the way of EVE as GENESIS WARNED.

Because the chruchians failed to exalt the HEROIC CODE OF HONOR, they left the church buildings standingz, but now live in cocnstant fear of tehir wive’s butt and gina tingzzlzlzoozoz as if they ever get off the butt/gina tinzgzzlzlzl treadmill, their wife will blow up the family. This bizaare, pervereted system is modern Crhistainaity, where good men get all the risks, and womenz and perverted minister churchcians get all teh material reardsz.

And so, instead of seeing the BEAUTY OF THE LAW OF MOSES which stated that a WOMANS DESIRE WAS TO BE UNTO HER HUSBANDZ, the anti-Christ, anti-Moses Chruchians built their chruch centered upon butt and gina tinzgzlzlzozozozoz, sanctifying every boner over da cross and replacing Holy Water with gina juice and butt lube lzozozozozoozozozozl.

Watch the little Chruchcian fanboysz raging against the LAW OF MOSES which JEsus CAME TO FULFILL:

Churchians have no shame and deserve every divorce/broken marriage they get. Their failed gamey crusade shall soon be forgotten, while the Christ and Moses they castigated, ignored, belittled, censored, and impugned shall Rise Again and Serve the Rising Generation who honors the Law of Moses and our Lord Jesus Christ over gamey game and gina tiznzgzlzlozozozo.

“Those who live by the tingzlzozozozozl shall die by the tingzlzlzozozlzoz” -GBFM

And it might even be part of a larger epicyclic pattern, the existence of which we don’t realize yet.

Or, when I say “epi-cyclic”, maybe it isn’t even cyclic at all, maybe it’s just “epi-“, as in so big that if it isn’t stopped, then it will take down everything with it, and there won’t be anything left to “re-cycle”:

For instance, the biologists are seeing an increase in obesity in laboratory mice and rats, even though those rodents [and their rodent ancestors] have been kept on a strictly-defined constant-calorie diet for decades now.

Some have postulated that maybe all of the mammals are getting obese these days because there is some ancient biological circuitry within them which senses the pending onslaught of a new Ice Age [and certainly the sudden disappearance of sun spots these last few years is an ominous development in that regard].

There are plenty of Anthropologists who believe that humanity [or at least the hominid] has gotten perilously close to extinction in the past:

> “As Robert Putnam has discovered, ethnic and racial diversity reduces trust and social cohesion. Radically heterogeneous societies lose their aura of connectedness. Within this atomized, unraveled milieu, sociopaths thrive.”

Robert Putnam, of course, is interested in questions of communal trust – the presence and absence of trust between people and their [more or less immediate] neighbors.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, on the other hand, in his “Fourth Quadrant” essay [as above], is interested in things like redundancy of systems, especially as a safeguard against unknown [and essentially unknowable] risks [hello, Donald Rumsfeld].

For instance, Taleb points out that raw, naked “capitalistic” nihilism leads managers, in managing the systems under their purview, to demand perfection of EFFICIENCY [as a means of maximizing short term profits] at the expense of any residual REDUNDANCY in the systems, and in fairly short order, lack of redundancy tends to lead to “99.9% efficient” power grids which collapse when folks power up their air-conditioners on a hot summer day, or “99.9% efficient” banks whose currency reserves are so low that they can’t withstand even the slightest run at the teller’s window.

The point of all this is that I sense now – everywhere I go – that the reserves of Robert Putnam’s “trust” are getting dangerously low, and that we are quickly losing any of Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s “redundant” supplies of “trust” which would help to keep this tinder pile of a society from incinerating.

Everywhere, it seems like folks are on a hairpin trigger.

Particularly the libtards: The slightest little deviation in expected outcomes seems to throw the libtards into an uncontrollable rage these days – the lawyer who thought he could get out of the parking lot in 10 seconds, but had to settle for 15 seconds because the pickup truck ahead of him was driving at a safe speed, the hipster chick who thought she could walk her unruly bare-mouthed jumping and lunging pit bull in public and the Dads at the park wouldn’t warn her to keep that God-damned killing machine the hell away from the innocent children at play, the Obama-son which couldn’t control its temper at school and took to beating the crap out of the white girls, and, of course, the WHITE bulldyke school principal which excused its behavior because Jungle Fever FTW!!!.

Every-damned-where I go, the libtards are losing it.

Becoming completely unhinged.

> “But no nation of sociopaths ever put a man on the moon.”

The only guy in the mainstream media who seems to sense this – this breakdown in trust [to include the perilously low reserves of trust remaining in our society to offer any possible redundancy against catastrophe], and the attendant rise of sociopathic rage which seems to be accompanying the breakdown in trust – is Glenn Beck.

For the longest time now, Beck has been warning his listeners about the need for calm and patience and forbearance and more than a little “Love thy Neighbor” if we are going to be able to survive the coming Troubles.

Beck is a smart dude, who fakes a Beta Herbling Manboob routine on the air, in order to lure in all of the “Oprah Book Club” housewives, but he knows what the deal is – he knows how horrible things might soon become.

> “So sociopathy has its privileges.”

Which leads us to The Frankfurt School.

They emptied the institutions of the grossly clinically insane and dumped them right into our laps.

They invented “feminism” and shoved it down everyone’s throats, knowing full well the insanity which feminism would induce in the women of the world.

They demanded that their students in the universities memorize and regurgitate this nihilism in order to pass any and all humanities and social sciences courses being offered by the modern academy.

In all of their media outlets – print, broadcast, theater, online – they pump this agenda of narcissistic/borderline/sociopathic insanity into the culture, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

It never stops – everywhere and at all times – they are attempting to overload the system and force it to collapse.

Here, to his credit, the person who first spoke out against all of this insanity was Michael “Savage” Weiner, who saw the insanity for what it was, and declared, in no uncertain terms, “LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER!!!”

There’s something about guys like Savage, and David Horowitz, and Mickey Kaus, which allows them to see straight through all of this horsehit and call a spade a spade.

I think it’s because they were supposed to have grown up to be Frankfurt School Nihilists themselves, but somewhere along the way, they took a “wrong” turn, and ended up as adults with their consciences still largely intact.

They know the Frankfurt School for what It is, and they know precisely what’s at stake.

> “Under what conditions would women swoon for sociopaths? Very harsh conditions, for one. An emotionless Machiavellian is a useful mate to have when survival is constantly tested.”

Finally, for the YaReallys and the Scrays and the rest of the snake-in-the-grass coalition at The Chateau, you will NEVER score as much poontang in peacetime as you will score if [and/or when] The Troubles finally arrive:

The attractive man has command of his involvement/investment in any given social situation. The deliberate withdrawal of interest is an indicator of his ability to control both himself and his environs. Girls swoon for command presences. Sociopaths by definition have no control, as they entirely lack the ability to offer or withhold their investment and therefore have no means to master a social dynamic from top to bottom, from brain to womb.

The “mastery” in “amused mastery” means self-discipline. Sociopathy is mistaken by the woman as sangfroid/imperturbability/confidence insofar as the sociopath can conceal the emptiness that accompanies and essentially defines the disorder.

Again, “chicks dig sociopaths” is a callow assertion and lazy conclusion that leads frustrated omegas like JD to explode in geek rage when their dysfunction gets them “creep” cred rather than the promised “pussyslayer” rep, which is instigated in losers by CH irresponsibly.

Bob Wallace below has been all over this uniquely manospherian canard from the beginning, and he is correct.

The very fact that you imagine sociopaths to be the toast of the social scene in direct contradiction to the DHM clinical definition of the disorder (“antisocial” and “dissocial”) tells me how slavishly devoted you are to the musings of amateur “manospherian” psychologists.

You should use a more accurate word, like “amoral” rather than sociopathic. You are idealizing a personality disorder which requires the lack of volition, a fundamental inability to maneuver willfully among people.

So, I’m not going to give you a list. Scray has just given you a hint where you might begin compiling one.

Rather, the burden of proof is on you to provide the names of even a handful of high-functioning clinical sociopaths who somehow successfully socialize despite their antisocial behavior. And preposterously fictional characters like Patrick Bateman do not count.

You need to read the world expert Dr. Robert Hare’s books on psychopathy as its obvious you don’t have even a slight understanding of what “antisocial” means in the psychopathic context. It does not mean that they avoid society or are bad in social situations but that they are destructive to society through their social interactions. In other words they love being around people and working the crowd with their sociopathic manipulation and charm skills.

You need to read the world expert Dr. Robert Hare’s books on psychopathy as its obvious you don’t have even a slight understanding of what “antisocial” means in the psychopathic context. It does not mean that they avoid society or are bad in social situations but that they are destructive to society through their social interactions. In other words they love being around people and working the crowd with their sociopathic manipulation and charm skills.

Sociopathy means having an inability to commiserate or empathize, and from that inability, yes all kinds of willful acts may occur.

“Antisocial … in the psychopathic context” means contrary to the normal, well-adjusted, healthy, non-deviant social dynamic. “[D]estructive to society” would be better described as “dissocial.” I didn’t say sociopaths were “bad in social situations,” I said they lacked certain basic tools of social interaction, like the ability to empathize, which must by their very nature limit them in their mastery of that interaction — if also give them an upper hand on people with a conscience in certain limited applications.

My brief was against pedestalizing the sociopath, because that’s only possible by ignoring all the malign qualities of that condition while exaggerating the good, which by clinical definition cannot be extricated from each other.

Good catch, Americans never set foot on the Moon, however it´s pretty close-minded to believe that humans will never get out of this rock. Such kind of thought is a quintessential proof that our civilization has reached its limit and its close to its terminal decline.

The whole construct of “prosocial” and “antisocial” is based on certain assumptions of what kind of “society” is valuable overall. It’s an area where “reframing” is imperative because its use by the Left’s use of “social” is most definitely “weaponized” at this point. If the Left’s equality agenda is contrary to humanity’s evolved biology, then that agenda is actually “antisocial” if “social” is taken to mean best-aligned with one’s own biological nature, which seems like a pretty fair definition to me. As long as the Left’s opponents only debate the means to achieving “prosocial” behaviors, as defined by the Left’s definition of “prosocial”, they will be on the losing end more often than not.

“Competition” is a great example. Is it “prosocial” or “antisocial”? The answer one gives says a great deal about the kind of society one envisions as ideal.

The details lie in the definitions and the point of such studies is to create what appears to be a scientific basis to an invented social problem, which needs to be solved for the greater good. This is likely another attempt at pathologizing more male behavior.

Pathologizing the character traits of your political enemies is an ag-old tactic. Are you a Pajama Boy? Don’t like white masculine men? Simple, just get control of the DSM, then come up with a pathology that conveniently has the same symptoms as the people you find personally disagreeable. This shit has passive-aggessive hebe all over it.

“Politics: The effete visage of the ObamaCare pitchman known as Pajama Boy already is a figure of fun. But now it comes to light that Ethan Krupp is more than just a smirking, turnoff face for an ad. He’s a leftist extremist…”

“The left-leaning Jewish Daily Forward goes all-in to defend Footie Pajamas Boy… ‘In fact, Pajama Boy stands at a centuries-old nexus of anti-Semitism and misogyny. As scholars including Sander Gilman and Daniel Boyarin have shown, Jewish men have been accused of being unmanly for hundreds of years – including by other Jews, such as the early Zionists, whose muscular Judaism was a direct response to diaspora Jewish emasculation. This is an old, old motif…'”

Santa666 and everyone, please go to the Toonami website and request the broadcast of the Anime Shugo Chara, Shonen Anime like Naruto have been resurrected on American TV like in the days of Dragon Ball, but since the years of Sailor Moon, a new Magical Girl Anime is still absent from American TV, of the new Magical Girls ,i liked the most Shugo Chara😉 it needs a timeslot on Toonami !

support SPACE DANDY in the ratings too, last zombie episode was great🙂 and the writer seems to be a woman, Kimiko Ueno, as i have said before, women shine something as talent for writing at least (remenber also the sucess of Harry Potter or Hunger Games). And ps, yes i never was a woman, but i won’t use that name anymore anyways.

just because YOU can’t engage your higher functioning to override your basal herd instinct doesn’t make ME a monster. it may make YOU a cow, pig, whatever common farm animal you wish to identify with, but that’s the luckof the genetic lottery.

i’m an exceptional man, as are the many others like me. we design and rule your life and the other chattel around you. don’t get pissed, it just is.

One can be well raised but a bit of exposure to the dating world will give plenty of experience in emotional neglect and abuse. What one learns from it is up to the learner. There are plenty of voices telling people to learn that they are inadequate and to try harder. And then there’s red pill.

Once you learn that, all they can do is say you’re bitter, I haven’t seen so much of calling such people sociopathic, but it may be coming. Is DSM-VI to be the next weapon against the red pill?

A lot of people who swallow the red pill are bitter, tho. Now that I observe people more and have seen others who have swallowed the red pill in action, I can tell you what goes on:

beta dude goes for girls at his SMV or slightly above
Those girls burn him
beta dude gets MAD swallows red pill
beta dude thinks being a serial kliler/sociopath/asshole/whatever is the way
beta dude starts picking up girls who are lower in SMV
beta dude treats those girls like shit
beta dude thinks he has learned something

The materials here are for initiation only. To get the quality puss you have to expand your horizons — or just simplify lol. The world is way more superficial than the blue or red pill give it credit for:

1) Get your hygiene fucking sorted (TEETH, smell)
2) Get your appearance sorted (gym, style)
3) Get your confidence sorted (best way to do this is to find a skill or talent that YOU developed and YOU control that YOU are GOOD at….and just export that competent feeling to every action you do — even if it’s WoW; it follows that the more of these skills you develop, the more confident you will be — and it will be the right kind of confidence. Don’t put your confidence in your appearance or your looks)
4) Make her laugh and try to connect.

Follow those, and you can knock some srs boots. FFS just be a cool, fun guy. Forget trying to be a serial killer. Forget super alpha blah blah.

It is one more factor. If their sociopathic behavior would mean they couldn’t get loose women to drool over them, most of them would be forced to change. Unfortunately there are more and more such women. And as mentioned in a study posted by CH, when women can get money from parents and government, they become less inclined to choose the stable, boring provider at an early age, and instead spend more time with the exciting cad.

Any social set up that allows one to think of ‘us’ vs.’them’ will excuse the poor treatme t of ‘them’. A ‘ moral community’ obliges the insider to treat other members ethically, while for outsiders, anything goes.

In good times inthe usa, the lines were blurred and we could afford to treat nonmembers decently or at least, leave ’em breathing. Not so when the economy collapses.

Exactly… more feral negros, more feral hispanics, more whites being imbued with Cathedral “hate yourself”, “anything goes”, “mock everything” and “do what you want” South Parkery, and voila!, a nation of sociopaths who don’t give a rat’s ass about anyone or anything but their next thrill.

“you will empathize too much with the particular needs and reproductive goals of women.”

Yep, I actually love women. I don’t like to see them beat into a pulp or forced to eat shit. My saving grace was my discovery I have no need of unconditional love, even from myself. Anything done in selfishness for my sake , will be theirs.

Men just need to recall their love of toys. Boys loved their toys with no need to have love returned. With enough attitudinal force, they are molded and they play the role that is needed. Women are possessed by natural spirits, slaves to its will. Exercise the natural host and replace it yours and love will be returned because you have freed them from their torment . That love will indistinguishable from the love one has for self because you have compelled them to love you.

They may take pity on you since we all have a social drive , but none of this applies to erotic love where no native goodness exists. If anything the native spirit in women when it comes to erotic love must be thought of as inherently evil to you.

But what is not to love now that you know? Simply empty the original vessel of its harmful contents and replace the void in their terrified womb.

Personally I think the “conservatives” are worse. As a Lockean- Jeffersonian libertarian, I would not be lumped in with them or any of the 1st and 2nd estates. They delude themselves that they differ, but they are typically nothing but FIRE sector landed gentry reborn , not the tyrants, capitalists, pioneering Americans or any other such force that does not descend from government. I am with them and not modern conservatives who are piles of meat for an insidious virus. The landed intrests and financiers have infiltrated it and corrupted it. And they are the same ones who toss crumbs of what remains to the welfare sewer rats.

Fuck no. Conservatives are some of the biggest, piece of shit, large estate fucks on the planet. They haven’t read a single sentence of Scottish Enlightenment. The 19th century Republicans in the progressive era were trying to head that shit off. The basic principle of classical economics is to not tax labor and capital, but rents and luxury. 1950s Republicans believed in state sponsored infrastructure where market systems fail due to inherent economic rents. Regressive flat taxes on asset income is just landed gentry and share cropping with a financial and capitalist facade.

Communism is not the opposite of capitalism . Its not 200 years old. What’s been destroying civilizations for thousands of years? The commies just failed to solve it. Its been solved starting with Quesnay and Adam Smith, but its been lost in history.

Conservatism/libertarianism requires conscious and strenuous effort to maintain, because it swims upstream against our natural leanings toward laziness and corruption.

Partly. Discipline is always tougher than laziness. But most people actually do want to be disciplined, and that is why we have seen cultures shaped to promote discipline.

Promiscuity is more fun for the individual, and ruled in the Stone Age, but for a society to move forward it has to be reined in, in favor of what we call family values. And so cultures were shaped to promote monogamous marriage.

A hint that people usually forget is that marriage was invented by cultures all across the world, independent from each other. That means it must have a role to fill, it must be efficient, just like the spear was invented everywhere. And family, hierarchy, tribes/nations, trade, property law, etc. (The only tribes that don’t have a sense of personal property are small and stuck on a Stone Age level. These are worshipped by Marxist “cultural anthropologists” as “living in harmony with nature”.) Look at the things that have been invented across the world and you see the basis for normal life. “Conservatism” if you will, that misnomer that I think should be named realism.

But I digress.

What I mean is: while the Id seems to be the natural state, so too is the Superego, the restraining of the Id. The Id came first, but the Superego came next, allowing us to move forward. They are different stages in our evolution, but equally natural.

If someone bothered to gather some evidence that supported it [that autism is rising, due to assortative mating], I might. I don’t that it’s clear that there has been any increase at all. I have my doubts as to whether autism is even a useful category: I would say the same about ADHD, and for that matter schizophrenia.

Mental retardation is at least defined: you perform below a certain level on some test.

Most common tests/diagnoses are likely accurate enough to give you a ballpark estimate of how common a certain personality profile is, but are certainly not accurate enough to establish long-term trends.

“Male sociopaths do better with women. This is indisputable. If sociopathy is increasing in America, then we must look to the foundational market of human interpersonal relations — the sexual market — to discover the source of this increasing sociopathy.”

If there is an increase at all, it’s almost certainly not likely due to differential reproductive success of psychopathic men (i.e., evolution).

I would hold off from invoking environmental cues without making it being clear that there is an increase.

Of course, the next question becomes (assuming sampling, etc aren’t problems) is the purported rise in psychopathy adjusted for race?

Part of the definition for Sociopath says; a person who lacks a sense of moral responsibility.

All those young women binge drinking, doing drugs, being very promiscuous, getting abortions as if it was sport, or having kids from 4 different fathers, and posting pics of their immoral behavior on facebook or pics of their cleavage and their body piercings and tattoos and so on and so forth

they have a lack of sense of moral responsibility

and there are more and more of them, and certainly a lot more than there was only 30 or 40 years ago

If your claim about morality is objective, then kindly explain how you escaped the subjectivity the rest of us are supposedly trapped by. If your claim about morality is subjective, then we can disregard it as nonsense.

I hope you realize that this is almost the same as saying nothing is ever wrong or nothing is ever right?

Tell me what society/civilization/culture/race considers young women being so drunk they fall on the ground unconscious not immoral?

What society considers stealing a normal thing? or having sex with 8 months old babies?

Maybe to barbarians this would not be immoral.

but that is the thing’ we are not barbarians.

Or maybe to hyenas or wolves it would not be immoral but we are not animals.

To us – civilized humans – it is immoral ( now you are going to say; what is civilized? civilized is subjective!)

Jayman it is so rare that you agree with anything anyone else says…

You seem to enjoy saying the opposite of what everyone says, and you seem to like to claim no one knows anything for sure.

It seems you have found a way to make everyone feel like they are wrong by trying to convince then we know nothing for sure.

You have a strange attitude.

Don’t you realize that by always saying we know nothing for sure that it means that you do not know either?

If we don’t know what morality is , then how do you know if we are wrong or right since you do not know either what is moral?

So why do you bother?

If no one knows what is moral, what is hot, what is cold what is wet, what is day, what is night, then why do you bother informing us no one knows anything for sure?

it never ends with you.

if we say a table is 28 inches high you say we don’t know if the measuring tape is precise.

if we say the measuring tape is precise, you say we don;t know if we correctly measured the table

if we say we correctly measured the table you say we don’t know if it is really a table

and it goes on and on …

Are you trying to convince us that you are smart ?

Yes you are relatively smart but you use your intelligence to accomplish not much in the end…you use it to say the opposite of everyone and to try and shoot down what everyone says.

and by saying morality is subjective you kind of shot yourself in the foot; no one thought that was very smart of you.

I think if I said a triangle ( 2 dimension – on paper ) has three side you would tell me we do not know that for sure, that seen from the fourth or fifth dimension it may have more than three sides and you would go on and on accomplishing nothing except annoy everyone

The fact you can not admit women binge drinking until they fall on the floor unconscious is morally wrong is really strange

You have a strange attitude

as if no one can ever be right about anything, you just can not have that

maybe your need to be right is out of control maybe your need to appear smart is out of control, maybe it is something else, but it is weird that you always have the same reaction to everything anyone says on any topic

Your blog is about that as well; you take some topic – any topic – and you spend pages and pages trying to demonstrate that no one knows anything for sure, and since they don’t then they can not be right

I’m not a contrarian for its own sake; I am a truth-seeker. Because of time constraints, I don’t tend to answer things I agree with or have no opinion on (though check out my Twitter feed to see me spread notions I support – which is not everything I tweet/retweet). Hence, you often tend to see me comment on claims for which I have an objection.

Race and sex may not be social constructs, but morality is. Moral beliefs are not eternal features of the universe that exist independently of man; they are human inventions. Granted, they are not random or completely fungible social constructs, since moral inclinations are partly inherited, but they don’t have an existence all their own.

But yes, there are human universals in moral conventions. Again, this is so because of common (inherited) features of the human psyche.

Note that this does not mean that there aren’t things I personally feel are right and wrong, but that’s just it.

To touch on a key larger concept, outside of mathematics and logic (a clue), all facts are subject to revision in lieu of additional evidence. Of course, the extraordinary level and type of evidence necessary to get us to go back over some facts (such as that the Earth orbits the Sun) is so incredible it’s probably unlikely to ever happen, and hence we can (and should) regard them as being correct. But it’s important to keep that in mind. It’s also important to note that many currently held facts – especially ones in the human sciences – don’t reach that level of certainty.

But that’s an advanced concept. I mentioned it only to address your points.

“I think if I said a triangle ( 2 dimension – on paper ) has three side you would tell me we do not know that for sure”

Actually, that we do know for sure, since that is true by definition (see above).

Now, to bring this back to the discussion at hand:

“The fact you can not admit women binge drinking until they fall on the floor unconscious is morally wrong is really strange

You have a strange attitude”

Here’s the flaw in your reasoning: immoral to whom? Saying that X or Y behavior is immoral is the definition of a normative argument. Normative arguments depend on values. In other words, in order for them to be supported, all parties must share those values.

For that, there are some people who don’t give a shit.

More to the original point, I think we can agree one aspect of psychopathy is a willingness to defy/disregard the norms of the society.

However, several problems crop up here, especially with the example you use. Trying to define psychopathy specifically from some particular behavior: what if the norms of the society are in flux or have recently significantly changed? Is that particular behavior disregard the norms? Especially for traits that exist on a continuum, as psychopathy seems to, the precise definition of the cut off is going to affect year-to-year rates of prevalence, aside from other facts. As well, the variable and subjective (see above) nature of what constitutes deviant behavior also introduces error.

That said, there are certainly many real psychopaths. Getting an exact count, and certain something accurate enough to establish trends is going to be difficult. That’s all I’m saying.

Again, my goal is to get at the truth. Here, I making folks cognizant of the problems with making claims like the ones made here.

My on-the-ground informed suspicion is that sociopathy — i.e. a willingness to use people and a casual disregard for blowback from one’s self-aggrandizing actions — is increasing. I suspect that the shift is, at first, mostly among those who already have sociopathic tendencies and the cultural zeitgeist is such that those tendencies get amplified. Given enough time this culturally amplified sociopathy becomes reproductively amplified, and then the whole nature of the society changes.

JonJon: I see, you must be a medical researcher and know all about dopamine receptors and hallucinations and all. Wow. Just Wow. Can you explain it to us so we know all those other scientists are just simps you have overruled?

Hallucinations are symptoms — even people who mean “mental illness” literally don’t consider a disease. Nice try but I’m not denying a physiological cause for such symptoms. Read the DSM entry on schizophrenia. There is no mention in there of any objective falsifiable values like neuron firing rates, or third ventricle sizes. The cause of any entry is poorly or not understood and will not show up on autopsy.

Butt pirates used to be pathologised but were taken out of the DSM based on a vote at the 1971 APA convention, like other “diagnoses” are added to or taken out.

If I’ve got the flu I can say, “I’m sick”. When I get over it, I can say, “I’m healthy”. But on what basis can I say, “I’m mentally healthy”? “Mentally health” is always judged someone else, who himself has to be judged by someone else competent to make that judgement, a component of which competency is being — mentally healthy — and so it goes, ad infinitum. Who is the ultimate judge? Is he “mentally healthy”?

If I say, “you are an epileptic”, you can bring me back a normal EEG, copy your entire medical record, including neurology consult for neuralgia, which makes no mention of seizures or history of seizure disorder and bring me sworn affidavits of your close friends, coworkers and family members, each attesting that they’ve never seen you have a fit. Alternatively, if I say, “you’re pretty healthy”, you can bring me records, including objective test results and numerous surgeries, showing me that your health is worse than that of the guy who wrote the song, “If You Dig It, Don’t Do It”.

You have mother issues that are causing you to be depressed, a borderline personality and oppositional defiance disorder. Prove me wrong. I might as well have said that faeries are watching over you, in terms of your ability to falsify my statements.

from the point of view of viruses, when we are what we call sick the virus is happy and healthy, it is eating what it likes to eat, it is comfortable in an environment it likes, hell! it is fucking like rabbits making more viruses! ( I KNOW viruses don’t actually fuck, it is a figure of speech ) it is thriving!!It is having a party!!!

who are we to disagree with viruses?

everything is relative! from the point of view of viruses everything is fine when we are what we call sick.

the opinion or the feelings of viruses are just as valid as ours!

what is sick to us is healthy to them.

thus we humans are not allowed to judge viruses.

nor should we say we are sick.

see how easy it is to play this game?

Don’t you people see that this attitude of ” everything is relative, we can not be sure of anything” is insanity?

Do you want us to vote in laws to protect the well being of viruses because they have as much a right as us to be alive and happy?

If we follow yours and Jayman’s “logic” ( it is not really logical, it is something that has the appearance of being logical but that is wrong or false, something between sophism and paralogism… not all complex thoughts are right you know, intelligent minds can come up with very complex but nevertheless wrong ideas and come to wrong conclusions )

so if we followed your “logic” and Jayman’s “logic” then no human could say of another they have mental problems nor could we say it is wrong for women to be so drunk they fall unconscious to the floor

Anyone could do anything they want to anyone at anytime anywhere…

what a nice world this would be right?

not.

it would be total chaos

What you and Jayman seem to not be able to see is that if we lived according to your way of seeing things, we would not be allowed to say that driving on the right side of the road is the right thing to do, anyone could drive their car on any side and in any direction.

no one could judge another human being on his choice of driving on the left ( as they do in England) or on the right, both choices are as valid, everything is subjective, relative…

and then most of us would end up mutilated, paralyzed or dead

I know I know I am over simplfying but it is to illustrate the obvious that you seem unable to see

If I could type this in French – my first language – I would do a much better job.

Sanity is the capability to form the requisite intent to be guilty of a mens rea offence. I have no problem with judging someone sane or insane (so long as the insane criminals are kept from harming people as the sane one are). No problem with the concepts of mental competence and mental acuity, either, so long are there are protections in place for citizens so well as society. I just don’t agree with medicalising the mind.

I don’t know where you get that I am relativistic thinker. I think of myself as absolutist about most thing. I also don’t see how you can say that I want to drive on the left hand side of the road whilst knocking back a boilermaker just because I don’t belive in “mental illness”.

Off topic but since we’re on crazy chicks and sociopaths: re: the cutter chick in the tweet– the one who cut her name into the guy’s arm– all I have to say is: massive massive preselection. Better than “my exes are stalkers” game.

” … American law schools are accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA), which uses its power to promote diversity. Schools with too many white students risk losing accreditation, which would mean students would not qualify for federal financial aid and, in many jurisdictions, could not even take the bar exam.

In 2000, an ABA reaccreditation inspection discovered that at George Mason University Law School in northern Virginia 93.5 percent of first-year students were white. The ABA recognized that GMU had made a “very active effort to recruit minorities,” but complained that the school was unwilling “to engage in any significant preferential affirmative action admissions program.” With its accreditation at stake, GMU lowered standards for non-white applicants and admitted more: 10.98 percent in 2001 and 16.16 percent in 2002. That was not enough. In 2003, the ABA summoned GMU’s president and law school dean and threatened them to their faces with disaccreditation unless the law school admitted more non-whites. GMU lowered standards even further, and managed to raise its non-white admissions to 17.3 percent in 2003, and 19 percent in 2004. This was still not good enough. “Of the 99 minority students in 2003,” the ABA complained, “only 23 were African American; of 111 minority students in 2004, the number of African Americans held at 23.”… ”

How did incompetence become our greatest strength?

The article also touches on violence and many other problems that are worse everywhere our “greatest strength” can be found.

The dog is enriched by the fleas. Without fleas the dog would only have a dog-oriented, boring culture focused on complex hunting and dog-family-rearing, not as exciting as the easygoing life of the flea. The flea surely has much to teach the dog. At any rate, no arguments or studies for this are needed, because Holocaust.

> “The dog is enriched by the fleas. Without fleas the dog would only have a dog-oriented, boring culture focused on complex hunting and dog-family-rearing, not as exciting as the easygoing life of the flea. The flea surely has much to teach the dog. At any rate, no arguments or studies for this are needed, because Holocaust.”

If you have a diverse hiring pool with university credentials, always do your own job-related reassessment.

I’m not sure if you’re allowed to include formally in your assessment the near certainty that a degree from University X is far more meaningful for a white male (even moreso, an asian male) than a heavily-favored person like, say, a black female. You should be allowed to include that because it’s statistically very obvious and very important, and I don’t know if there is case history about this.

You may have to reverify qualifications yourself. Keep good records, you can expect to have to prove you hired based on job-related objective factors.

A lot of contradictions here. Is a sociopath attractive because he’s a good provider (ruthless in a world of scarce resources) or because he’s a lazy badboy (pursued by women swaddled in the comfort of the welfare state)? To me, the sociopath’s defining trait is ruthlessness, which is attractive in reasonable doses because of his ability to survive and succeed in a competitive world. A lazy surfer dude type may fit someone’s definition of sociopath because he doesn’t give a sh*t about anything, but he’s not ruthless. Ruthlessness implies aggression.

That’s why I don’t agree with the theory that women in welfare-state cultures reward sociopathic traits more than they do in individualistic cultures. They don’t need to. Yes, women are hardwired to want aggressive, ruthless men. But that imperative is lessened in welfare states where women don’t need those types of men. They aren’t rewarded, and that’s why there are fewer of them… and more lazy surfer dude types.

The Ottoman Empire protected itself for a long time by an elite corps from the subject (Christian) countries, chosen at a young age for their intelligence and taken from their parents. They were forbidden to marry, fanatic Muslim by conversion, and Spartan by upbringing. Google “janissary”.

And let’s not forget the Byzantine Empire. Where the economy was actually upheld for a long time only through the steady influx of West Romans, who brought the money and know-how. And the discipline and culture, I bet.

What is the end game of this societal transformation? I’ve just finished Fahrenheit 451. An excellent prediction/examination of a emotionless, sociopathic dystopian future.

A choice quote, “Go home.’ Montag fixed his eyes upon her, quietly. ‘Go home and think of your first husband divorced and your second husband killed in a jet and your third husband blowing his brains out, go home and think of the dozens of abortions you’ve had, go home and think of that and your damn Caesarian sections, too, and your children who hate your guts! Go home and think how it all happened and what did you ever do to stop it? Go home, go home!’ he yelled.”

One of many relevant quotes in the book. Is this our path I wonder? It amazes me that authors like Bradbury and Huxley could speculate (and be right, in certain ways) so well on how humans could/would behave. They know us very well.

I would argue that tough times, historically, correlate with low levels of sociopathy. Cooperation and trust is essential in dealing with tough times. And outlying sociopaths get punished severely. You see this in hunter-gatherer societies. Living on the thin edge of survival. There is a LOT of killing, absent any state or government. But sociopathy in the Western sense seems not to exist. That is because kin-networks are all and they depend on cooperation. Sociopaths get sussed out quickly (there is nowhere to hide in small societies) and punished severely.

In band-level societies men also spend more time alone, hunting, fishing, camping: doing guy stuff. Boys become men by the time they are in their early teens, complete with rituals and affirmations of their masculinity: less emotional adolescent “alienation.” Very few males in the West live lives anything like that anymore. The one’s who do are often the subject of intelligentsia ridicule. It’s no wonder we’re in this shape.

Individualism is not the problem here. The Nazis were sociopaths by and large (leadership I mean), but they lived a very conformist, anti-individualist world view. Same with the Soviets. The ChiComs and NORKs are notoriously anti-individualist to a fault and their leadership all to a man display extreme levels of sociopath and narcissistic tendencies, all of the tooty frooty “interconnectedness, Star-Wars The Force culture” stuff notwithstanding. There is a difference between individualism and atomization, with one being healthy and the other being a view imposed from above which disassociates all actions from responsibility (by intent and design). Americans in 1890 were very rugged individualists, far greater than most here or anywhere else in these united States, who held together just fine and had a good sense of community. So while it’s correct to note the homogenous culture being superior to the multi-cult, blaming individualism is at best a very, very far stretch that flirts heavily with argumentum ad absurdum.

There is nothing to celebrate about a culture that creates abnormal levels of sociopaths, any more than there is to celebrate sociopaths. It’s kind of a dichotomy for these kinds of boards, on the one hand snickering like hyenas about how cool it is to embrace sociopathic tendencies for little more than getting your dicks wet, while on the other lamenting the lack of good women who are worth keeping. You can have one or the other but not both, as end of the day you cannot serve two masters. So you either embrace being a sociopath and give up any pretense of ever finding a decent woman, or you strive to restore society to a more rational basis (presumably divorced entirely from the Cult of Multi). Paening for what you don’t have while simultaneously intentionally acting as its destroyer is illogical.

Yeah, I call bullshit on “individualism”. Diversity, pop culture, dispersion (imagine being a sociopath, or even a minor criminal, in a small, close-nit community), social media, etc. All come way before individualism

What CH means is a society where people are looking out for number one in practice – even though this society promotes togetherness and solidarity in theory. As always, the Left does the opposite of what it says. “Solidarity” leads to people looking out for themselves only and not caring about other people.

I remember stories about this from the Soviet Union. People were empoverished by communism, and always kicked around by anyone who was higher up the ladder. So everyone learned to kick those below whenever they could.

A Western journalist in Cambodia wrote after communism about how a little girl fell down from a tree and the pavement head-first. This was in the middle of the day, but people just kept walking past the child. Only this Westerner rushed to help. That is what the Left’s ideology really does in a society – live under criminal control and people stop caring for others. Everything turns cold and cruel.

The good women disappeared before Game was promulgated to deal with the problem. It happened in that order, not the reverse, unambiguously. So we cannot “have one or the other” at our option, we did not have the option of better women.

Correct.
Women that earn my respect by behaving appropriately get my respect.
The rest I treat as walking cum receptacles because that’s what they deserve.
If there was a large amount of good women to choose from then you wouldn’t need Game or to treat them poorly.
But women choose to be narcissistic, vapid, gold-digging princess whores from a very early age far before they can claim to have been treat poorly and act that way.
As a great book once said: “There are no girls with good personalities”.
Until women become loyal, faithful, punctual, easy-going, funny, down-to-earth, hot, nymphomaniacs who are into the same sorts of things men are into then they won’t deserve to be treated as good women.

The Nazis were sociopaths by and large (leadership I mean), but they lived a very conformist, anti-individualist world view.

First of all, it’s Nazists. “Nazi” was a slur invented by the German communist party, and therefore picked up by British and then American media. It is like saying “commie”. Believing that “Nazi” is the real word simply reveals ignorance.

Second, Third Reich Germany had a much lower tax rate than for example Britain. And the gun laws from the Weimar Republic were relaxed, with widespread gun ownership in the form of hunting rifles and guns from the War. The only ones who were disarmed were the communists and non-Germans. The police were also disarmed, not even allowed to carry truncheons as Hitler considered those demeaning to the public. And still there were no guerrillas, no uprisings, as people loved the peace that came when the communists were jailed.

Germans were the most well-educated people in the world – that is a fact. They were allowed to leave the country at any time. (Jews too, in which case they could keep their wealth, and many did.) Since Germans were more educated than any other people, and since there were many areas around Germany where people spoke German (and many Germans spoke English, some spoke French), they had plenty of opportunities to leave. But they didn’t. Likewise in fascist Italy, where people also could emigrate at any time, one third of the Italians who had left for America came back home, so that there were more immigrants than emigrants.

This in stark contrast to communist countries, which always have laws forbidding people to leave, since they otherwise would leave in great numbers.

So your view of Germany as “conformist” and “anti-individualist” or any other school-textbook labels you wish to use is misinformed. But yes – Marxist “modern art” was banned. I suppose that can be called “conformist”, right? How great that we live in a “non-conformist” West now, where not only the Left’s worldview is promoted. Oh, wait….

They seem rather conformist to me actually. Herd instincts, stick together like glue for grrrrl-powrrrr, embracing all forms of foolishness if they see if come from authority, etc. all say “not rebels” to my mind.

There is no such thing as demons in the sense you are thinking. Demon comes from the greek word Daemon which comes from the root word Daio which means to distribute fortunes. In ancient greece Hercules was a daemon. He went to the underworld and came back giving gifts to men.

Also the roman emperor Octavian Augustus was considered a Eudaemon(good demon). This whole idea of people being “possessed” by demons is complete and utter bullshit.

The demon is you, me and everyone else.

Demon=self

For weak minded people…saying demons possessed them is an easy rationalization to avoid personal responsibility.

Driving out demons is simply exorcising from yourself the weaknesses you have inside of you so in that sense most people are not strong enough to drive out their demons and never accomplish anything of note in their lives.

Also these same insufferable fools externalize their own failures, inadequacies and general lack of ability as demonic so as to escape shining the light of scrutiny and introspection on themselves.

You know all those naive, young girls pimps exploit? Its the same interface. Some dumb ass, ghetto dwelling, toothless meth junkie is going to run rings around a man of my resources?…I don’t think so…

chi-town, it isn’t only about pimps and ghetto dwellers. It is about women being more eager to go with the aggressive guy than with the provider. And more and more women become like that as a society darkens. But yes, there are still many women who don’t like sociopaths.

Meant this as a reply to Earl’s comment about driving out demons but it keeps dissapearing.

There is no such thing as demons in the sense you are thinking. Demon comes from the greek word Daemon which comes from the root word Daio which means to distribute fortunes. In ancient greece Hercules was a daemon. He went to the underworld and came back giving gifts to men.

Also the roman emperor Octavian Augustus was considered a Eudaemon(good demon). This whole idea of people being “possessed” by demons is complete and utter bullshit.

The demon is you, me and everyone else.

Demon=self

For weak minded people…saying demons possessed them is an easy rationalization to avoid personal responsibility.

Driving out demons is simply exorcising from yourself the weaknesses you have inside of you so in that sense most people are not strong enough to drive out their demons and never accomplish anything of note in their lives.

Also these same insufferable fools externalize their own failures, inadequacies and general lack of ability as demonic so as to escape shining the light of scrutiny and introspection on themselves.

Go to any poor country and look at how sociopathic many “traditional” cultures are when it comes to making a livelihood. Many in the Philippines, Thailand, or India have no problems selling their daughters awayto the highest bidder.

Dark Enlightenment: ‘Sociopathy’ is a trait groomed by nature. What these WHO NWO clowns are doing is prescribing globalist mindthink for an imaginary disease of individuality culled by ecology, not to remove all sociopathy but rather to remove all other ‘cultural sociopathy’ (cultural identity and organization) that could rival NWO organized sociopathy. Fuck them. He who sociopaths last sociopaths best. Today: To pussy. Tomorrow: To arms. The next day: To husbandry and home.

“Worship is not on bended knee,
Nature knows not of mercy.
To pray is to accept defeat.
Power pisses on the weak,
Bow and beheaded by the beast,
Beggar on a bitches leash,
Scum is desperate for relief,
Worship is the way I ride,
Witching currents through the eye,
Of storms that force the false to die,
Worship the flames with which I rise
Into apocalyptic skies…”

i gotta theory called the shit head theory. up until life got easy enough for the ladiez to start acting like petulant children, things were hard and natural selection made sure we had a strong, viable population.

once daily life started to get easier and easier, women started to twist their nurturing and controlling behavior together (because they were now relatively safe and had the time) and their weak little offspring shitheads had a much better shot at survival, and so they did. assisted by technology.

then we had a shithead explosion of weak beta males (the present) which are evolving, through an SMP that hasn’t changed much, into herbs.

guys with the skilz, either natural or learned, are filling the gap nicely, and women, devoid of any social controls like religion etc. are welcoming the Dark Triad with open legs.

nature rushed to fill a vacuum and like any other, and viola, the dark triad has not just legs, it squats a single rep max at 650.

i know its an oversimplification, and not new, but its the best way i’ve found to explain the smp and the sphere to people who i deem worthy of an unplug.

Agreeing with yourself? Does this show that you’re not schizo, or that you are?

You think women were always thus and it’s the men who got weaker. I think men are mostly OK, indeed genetics haven’t changed much. Men are raised by women to be herbs, and women are raised to be bitches, neither of those conditions held 150 years ago.

So women are going to go out and get real jobs to earn the 6 figure incomes to provide the lifestyle they want and look after the kids.
Let me know when that happens because I think pigs will be flying around a frozen hell.
All women are gold-digging parasites looking to prostitute themselves to the highest bidder their beauty will attract. Men will always be necessary in this.

Bitches aint nothin’ but tricks and hos. It’s men who hold the power. We can get from them what we want more easily than women can get from us what they want.

Mostly with you. Though how would that correlate with middle class folks in the 1850’s or even 1910’s. Both had it pretty easy compared to all previous generations of human beings, and by the 1910’s your chances of having a hard life in middle class America were slim to none unless it was self imposed. Yet you’d have found strong and fast family cohesion and women who were basically decent and what we’d call now conservative, modest even, without the “twist” you mention.

That’s all I wonder about. The survival of the weakest via technology has done a real hamstring on humanity in my opinion. We not only have very little danger of death at childbirth or during upbringing, we also now have no real massive wars that bring down the natural population of males. Technology developed by men is allowing women to survive without men or even from having to make decisions that are bad (from day to day) so that they rarely get to suffer the consequences of their own bad choices. From computers allowing them feigned knowledge to welfare (provided on our backs) to pick up their little candy asses and dust them off, men are basically working against themselves these days in a headlong rush to develop even more “labor saving devices”.

Personally, and this is my own little streak of sociopath coming through, it would not pain me terribly to see a lot of this come tumbling down IF I knew it would result in a better future for humanity/men. I really don’t see that at this point, I suspect most women would rather self-extinguish rather than give up Twitter. Scientific studies are even starting to show very strong correlations that it’s akin to a severe drug addiction. This ain’t gonna end well, and I have no solutions whatsoever to offer. There is no good path.

the longer we wait to crash it, the uglier it’s gonna be. do it now while there is still a semblance of decency in us and we may build something that doesn’t look like mad max. let the psycho’s continue to profligate and well….

Not the point. They had a far easier life than any before them, and even by today’s standards it wasn’t that bad. Yes, it would suck if you’re used to your head in an iZombie all day, but it really wasn’t that terrible, especially in 1910. The comforts didn’t mean you wouldn’t die, just as they don’t mean you are immune from dying today.

The point was simple to follow: if a basically relaxed, essentially less dangerous life grew feminism, then it sure didn’t appear to do so back when we still have a relaxed, less dangerous life. That meaning, there are other factors at play here.

“Technology developed by men is allowing women to survive without men or even from having to make decisions that are bad (from day to day) so that they rarely get to suffer the consequences of their own bad choices. ”

Well, if you by technology mean a high rate of taxation and a fully corrupt bureaucracy of zealots. The betas built the gun pointed at their head and voted for their own destruction.

‘Antifragile’ by nassim Nicholas taleb is excellent on this subject. All the modern day comfort shit we have to make us more comfortable actually makes us weaker in the long term. Also I lke twitter – depends on who you follow I suppose. It’s Facebook that’s for girls. They should rename it ‘nosy bitch’

Never underestimate the value of sociopathy. If anything, it is indicative of intelligence and a dispassionate, and thereby, accurate analysis of reality. Ever meet a stupid Machiavellian?

It also seems to freak out the left, so that’s another plus.

How sociopathy compares between East Asia and multicultural Western societies, though, is complicated.

I will admit that in a roomful of non-Asians, I feel like I’m alone fending for my own interests in a diverse jungle. I feel virtually no kinship with anyone other than Chinese, and if I ever do anything for the collective good, the collective in mind is the Chinese ethnic group. All other things being equal, in a social setting I will favor another East Asian -> Chinese -> Mainland Chinese -> Mandarin Speaker, in that order.

As experience goes, this sentiment is usually justified. In the West there is no sense of nationalism or patriotism the way they’re known in Asia. No collective agency, no pride, no rallying identity from which to compete against others. When I tried being nationalistic here, I get more hate from Westerners than their enemies. So what’s the point? It’s a nice place to live, but that’s about it. If something happens to China, my first reaction is to return and sacrifice for the ethnostate. If something happens here, my first reaction is to leave, not defend.

That being said, Asians in Asia are in many ways more sociopathic. We are taught to value money and personal glory above all, everything else comes after. There is very little effort at empathy in Asia, at least not in the organizational sense. Moral discourses serves only two purposes: One, as a commoditized status marker to be earned and displayed, or two, as a measure to hold the collective together. An excess of “love-based” morality is considered childish, stupid, and detrimental to our interests and objectives, and elicits in us anger, threat, and even physical nausea. Call it enlightened selfishness, if you will. It’s the drive that’s propelled Asian states one by one to first-world status.

—

For people like you and I, there is no reason to be what they call “pro-social”, by which it is meant the atmosphere of constant social posturing, taboos, and ridiculous overemphasis of emotions that you find within liberal spaces.

This is a society that disdains us and anyone who is (or tries to be) superior, ambitious, competitive, aggressive, or any of the other traits that forged human civilization. It’s the same reason they vilify the most important demographic of any society – young men from the dominant cultural group. All because it’s “too mean” or “not equal”. They do not empathize you because they convince themselves that which is valuable is monstrous and unfair. They would like nothing better than for people like us to disappear so they can build their utopia, where things run on love or good intentions or something. So why should you empathize with them?

Always take from liberals and leftists. If they are hurt, good. If they are hurt and as a result, change their worldview to align closer to reality, also good. Because if people insist on being sheep, then the only logical course is to fleece.

If you read any book by any FBI profiler dealing with serial killers, you’ll find these killers suffered dysfunctional families and severe emotional/physical abuse, usually at the hands of women. Those are the worst psychopaths – the serial killers, the multilators, the necrophiles (who sometimes have sex with their victim’s body parts), the cannibals. Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer.

The stupid ones end up dead or in prison. The smart ones become politicians.

Are some just born bad? Yes. If you’ll look at the neurologist James Fallon, he found he has the brain structure of a psychopath – and he’s descended from a line of killers, including Lizzie Borden. What did he say saved him? A wonderful, loving childhood.

Those who support the Dark Triad as something good don’t even know what it is.

Empathy is a core leadership trait. It also is the key to destroying your enemy.

Game has been corrupted by science fiction fantasy like yours. This omegastic “lone wolf” (social loser) escapism with a bitter attitude substitutes for the much more difficult skill set necessary to command men, from among them and above them.

In the book Ender’s Game, the apparently-sociopathic elder brother, Peter, is so good at manipulating people because he understands their fears. The apparently angelic elder sister, Valentine, is so good at manipulating people because she understands their anguish. The youngest, Andrew, is so good at leading people because he has both of those things and more.

See. This is how I know that the majority of you people are nerds who never go out and actually try to get laid. The computer words and headlines are your reality. Of course you believe that empathy precludes power.

If you lack awareness of what other people feel and you are a sociopath, you are going to be just as unsuccessful as any other guy.

From my reading about sociopaths, they are known to be very capable of faking empathy and understanding humans. They are very manipulative. They just don’t care about the pain they inflict. Depending on whether they are playing the long con or the short con depends on how long they’ll keep up the appearance.

I’d say this trend is happening because the incentives for being pro social are disappearing.

When women go for the bad boys, the cads, the guys who are selfish jerks to them, what incentive do men have to be respectful providers? None.

When jobs and money go to the undeserving, the affirmative action crowd, the people who don’t necessarily do better work but just know how to game the system, what incentive do men have to buckle down, better themselves, and put in quality work to better the community?

As much as (I find) the tragedy of the commons to be over cited by those with even a small amount of college education (they heard it once freshman year and then cite it for the rest of their lives) it really is how it works-

Society, being socially well adjusted, working together, only works if EVERYONE (or at least an appreciable majority, or a strongly influential minority) is playing the game. As soon as we have one group of assholes playing for themselves and getting REWARDED (pussy, money, whatever) everyone else being a team player is really just being a schmuck. And no one wants to be a schmuck.

People who are team players are already rewarded. For some reason everyone equates sociopath with charismatic pussy slayer. At the higher levels all of this shit is way subtler than you guys are giving it credit for.

Most of ya’ll NEED TO WORK on being “team players” first. Become a cool, well-liked guy. That will solve like 90% of your pussy problems, assuming you’re a decent fuck.

Past that point, ya you probably could work on being more Machiavellian — really the trait that sociopathy enables. But this is removed from just sociopathy for its own sake. All you’re doing is using your social credibility to its maximum advantage. You build up capital by becoming a cool, well-liked guy….and learning how to invest that capital for social returns is the Machiavellian/sociopathic part. Of course, the investing and harvesting and applying requires empathy — even it’s a calculating empathy. So, ultimately, you still need to be a team player.

Full sociopath is just omega. Or, at best appealing to the most damaged of women (not saying some of those women aren’t hot). I’d rather hold on to my personal viewpoints of the world and apply what power I gain toward those ends tho.

“All you’re doing is using your social credibility to its maximum advantage. You build up capital by becoming a cool, well-liked guy….and learning how to invest that capital for social returns is the Machiavellian/sociopathic part. Of course, the investing and harvesting and applying requires empathy — even it’s a calculating empathy.”

that’s called Beta.

“Full sociopath is just omega.”

….is what a Gamma would say.

Dominance (Alpha/Sigma) is the implication of Physical/Psychological/Emotional violence to advance your agenda. You dial it BACK to allow compliance and an escape route for your subjects.

You should re-read The Art of War, 48 Laws of Power, hell, all of it. If you really wanna grow into your full potential you MUST stop half-assing it.

No one gives a fuck about your PPE violence unless you first have value. Unless you’re deriving that from your appearance or stature you must first gain the admiration/respect of the group. Gamma is something a dork would say. But yeah, you guys can keep circle-jerking each other with this James Bond meets Machete meets Hannibal fantasy caricature.

Violent crime has declined markedly in the past 20 years. So has teen pregnancy. Drug use has either remained stable or has declined as well. If sociopathy has increased over the past 20 years, why have these metrics of social decay improved significantly over the same time period? Perhaps they will reverse themselves and we are in the calm before the storm.

Crime is easy, from a U.S. perspective. Men wised up and started arming themselves, literally, in daily life as a counter measure against the thugs that were bred in the 60’s and grew quite powerful through the early/mid 1990’s. Suddenly CHL laws hit mainstream and were adopted across nearly all of the states and now there are sidearms everywhere wielded by men with the training and implied threat to respond with force to force, and the profit vs. risk calculation for random “just for fun” crime became deadly for criminals.

I’ve heard (no stats) that drug use is about the same or even rising a bit as of late. I suspect that it’s due to the natural number of kids who want to try in any given youth population. Dunno if that has anything whatsoever to do with being a sociopath.

Teen Pregnancy – no idea, got numbers to show me? And that wouldn’t necessarily correlate to sociopath behavior anyway, it could well be that a lesser number of betas are “empowered” to try to screw chicks these days in this anti-male climate. They are turning men into females in public schools after all, at least mentally.

The first is a known factor (crime vs. armed society). The other two are guesses.

This is OT but maybe someone can help me deal with this irritating situation. I’ve been seeing this girl whose boyfriend is away in army boot camp. He just recently came back for winger break but will leaving in a few days. Now to make a long story short I’ve been fucking her endlessly and she loves it. I applied game and blew every beta in my social circle out of the water. She was even considering breaking up with him to be with me. I’ll let you know she is in a serious relationship with him and phones his mother and has a strong bond with his family. She just came back from meeting with him in NYC and tells me we “have to be friends now.” He is leaving shortly but will return in a month or so. She keeps inviting me out but I’m getting annoyed with the friend shit. Should I call her out on this bullshit? Is this a shit test? What does a young alpha in training do? Any advice would be great. Saturday night she scheduled a date and wants me to take her out. Should I just go and pay no attention?

I’ll enjoy myself here with my own private musing, and allow you to discover what a man who is being trained to mercilessly and efficiently kill others does when he encounters a snake in the grass fucking his girlfriend. My amusement coming from my own experience in the military and seeing this happen to a few guys I knew who acted…according to their training. One received an in-service discipline, the other one didn’t make it back to base but got to start enjoying time in prison. Never heard what became of him since, but I know Jody took it pretty damned hard (we were never told how hard, just that it was bad) so I assume he didn’t get a light sentence.

You may come out of it alive and simply wounded or permanently maimed, or not. You may skate without consequences and he betas out and you get lucky; dunno, it happens. The chances of the former are greater than the later. It’s not good to be Jody that he sings cadence about every morning, kid. If you don’t know what that means, I urge you to look it up. Some of the more graphic of the cadences reference how to apply a k-bar to Jody’s spine successfully, at least that we sang in Fayettenam (Ft. Bragg). Fun times…fun times.

But do as you will. Me, in your shoes, I’d drop her and hope she doesn’t remember your name and I’d throw away the burner phone and not look back. She’s not only with him but in deep with his family, which lends him more of a…frame…to be more unforgiving than most other frames. He has to revenge not only his ego, but also look good in front of his family and attempt to not lose face. Or he may wimp out and you “get the girl”, who as it turns out, is a worthless slut that will betray you the moment your back is turned or that you’ll get bored with in a couple of months more time and dump anyway. I’m sure some here will advise you to go for it and “ha ha ha” and all that, since they don’t have to face the risk. You do. Your roll of the dice Jody, risk vs. reward, do as you will.

A young alpha fucks her when he goes out with her? Why would you waste time on a girl who you know isn’t going to fuck you? It sounds like you’ve tried several times and been denied. Move on. There’s more chicks.

I assure you every time we have gone out I’ve have always brought her back to my place and fucked. Now that she’s been in NYC she has came back with this “let’s jut be friends” shit test. I have decided to just cut her off entirely.

One morning show up at her front door with breakfast that you’ve masterfully prepared yourself. When she opens the door, reveal the delicacies from underneath a gold-plated shielding, poor the foodstuffs down your trousers, and then ask her for a second helping.

I am not a Mestiza, a minority of Mexico the 16% is White and i am one of them , why wouldn’t make sense that i support stormfront? i just made money on Mexico and i want to be out of here fast, what country should i live in ? not sure, it could be United States, Japan, United Kingdom or Spain, each of these countries have their appeal.🙂

Sicily = ethnic enclave inside a larger nation where the ethnic difference is long recognized. Not diverse.

Russia = Where does one even start. Which part in particular (more than Russians live in Russia you know, and a lot of criminals are imported Chechen)? It’s not monolithic. Also Russia is only recently divorced from its previous system and is still settling into a new framework, so it’s an invalid comparison at best since any civilization with a major revolution has growing pains (France anybody?)

Argentina = Homogenous?!? Seriously?!? heh

Greece = Decades of hard socialism causing a lack of social adhesion. Essentially the government became the outside ethnicity, or at least patterned its family and work ethic destruction after multi-culti societies.

1) The current ability of a woman to quickly change her man, means that the consequences of her choosing a sociopath are very low… if it doesn’t work out, there is always “next time”; along with the rationalization hamster of “he wasn’t good to me” which then translates to “it is not my fault”.

Back when divorce and/or the carousel was much less prevalent, there were very serious consequences to choosing a sociopath, and the societal rules and strictures served to help the woman who followed them, avoid such men.

2) Read up on Russia and how men/women interact … we are headed down the same path of alienation, I feel. The coming crash will reset things, and not in a way favorable to women.

This girl initially messaged me over facebook we bantered and met up for a date some time ago. Initially I told her it would only be 30 min but I was enjoying it and so I let it go on longer. The date lasted 2 to 2.5 hours.
During the date, we wanted to get a coffee, but the place where we met up was full and had no spaces. So I suggested we walk around a nearby mall and look for a starbucks there. We would walk around the mall from store to store and I would grab her hand and pull her in the direction i wanted to go. Id put my hand on her lower back, on her waist and eventually started touching her ass. Eventually we found a starbucks and had some coffee (she paid for both of ours, although i told her i’d pay for my own). After the coffee we walked around some more and I tried to kiss her after saying, “I think you have beautiful lips, I want to kiss them”. But she said, “too bad didn’t happen”. Eventually we left the mall and walked outside so i pushed her to the wall and tried to kiss her again, but she turned her face down and looked shy. But I held her and eventually felt her put her leg in between my legs and I knew she felt my boner. I let her off the wall and she started looking at movie posters plastered on the wall. One of these posters she pointed out to me said, “Men & Women” and I added in “kiss” while moving in for the kiss and got it. I then grabbed her hand and led her to the bus stop. As we were about to leave she gave me a giant hug, and I said, “you give me a hug without a kiss”. She said you can kiss me on the cheek and I was like, “nah ill grab your ass instead” whilst grabbing her ass at the same time. While I was standing at the bus stop, she texted me saying I could get a kiss if I hurried before her bus arrived. I was like w/e, didnt feel like getting her to come a few bus stops to me. When I came to her she gave me this doggy dinner bowl look and I kissed her and left. I was wondering whether it was a beta/needy move to come over to her bus stop to kiss her?
I was fairly dominant during the date, leading the interaction, getting her to qualify to me. When I kinoed her she would kino me back. For example when i went to hold her hand, shed started interlocking fingers with me or checking out my hands.

So I called a girl to set up a day 2, after which she told me that I am not good at pulling off the jerk personality and so I should tone it down a bit. A bro who I daygame with tells me the same thing, to drop the douchebag personality because it doesn’t suit me. But if I drop the douchebag personality, I’d start failing shit tests, frame tests, etc because I am a nice person that generally hates playing games.
So onto my story. During day 1 i got to k close and ass grabs, but for day 2 i couldn’t get a single kiss. Id go in and she’d turn her cheek every time or tell me to kiss her on the cheek first.For the date we went to watch a movie, and during the movie id try to escalate kino. So I put my hand on her leg and start slowly moving up it, but she’d always block it. Initially she would just swipe my hand off, but eventually she took my hand in hers, interlocked her fingers with mine, and stroked my hand and put it in her lap. She’d sometimes put her head on my shoulder or her hand on my knee. Yet she wouldn’t let me kiss her, instead pointing to her cheek and say, “cheek first”. We would also sexually banter, and make sexual play on words during the date. Furthermore, whilst our hands where interlocked in her lap, she let me rub her boob with my forearm, but no kiss.
After the movie ended we went for a short walk and i tried to lead and she was unresponsive at times, she would walk ahead or not listen to commands. However, whenever I tried to kiss she’d give me tight hugs, and tell me or hint that Im persistent and she even joked, “has anyone told you, you are annoying”.
Wtf is happening I am so confused? Should I give up on this girl? What did I do wrong? Why no k close on second date but I was able to get a k close on first date? What are my next steps? Should I go for day 3?

I guess her ASD is kicking in and you (and she) have to find a way around it. You were pretty direct at first and it’s been an ongoing battle so ASD is front and center in her mind. Be sure you don’t act butthurt or angry.

The normal way would be actually to date her a few times. This shows you care and aren’t just looking for a hole. Don’t worry about going backwards, she feels some attraction to you, but she wants to be able to see herself being OK doing more.

Might be interesting to find out her sexual history. Is she experienced? A virgin? A party girl? An intellectual?

You need some “push-pull” technique. Also, you seem to have a touch of one-itis.
Part of your problem is that you aren’t enjoying the game. Relax without relaxing your frame.
It also sounds like your comfort building technique needs some real work. Go do some reading. You should never, ever hear a girl tell you that you are annoying. Annoying is the kill of the tingle. Quit your single minded focus on the kiss, it isn’t the end all be-all of goals in early dates.

Read up some recent comments on turning the kiss on the cheek into a quick nuzzle on the neck. Not all women respond equally to kissing, in fact it isn’t even necessary to kiss to get to bed.

You are much better than stooping to a transparently absurd accusation for instigating the usual, virtually automatic and unconscious female ploy of “Let’s You and Him Fight … For My Amusement.”

The only thing more disappointing than that lazy attempt is your still lazier equivalence of envy and contempt. In women envy is the result of hidden admiration expressed as contempt. Men are more aware and more direct and know the score too well to try pulling that unintentional reverse psychology on their brothers.

When a dude tells another dude, “You’re an asshole,” it’s not like the way women say it. I don’t secretly think his mind- and scroll-finger-numbing disquisitions are popcorn-level entertainment. You’re half-a-bro yourself, you should get this.

Sounds to me, without being there and seeing the interactions first hand,that you were escalating too fast in a hurried fashion. Like the other guy said, enjoy the interraction by relaxing.
Did it feel awkward when you were trying to kiss her and she kept denying you? You’re coming off as sexually starved, she’s picking up on it.
Try going cold on her. Let her contact you. When she does, set up a date, but be aloof, NOT butthurt.
DO NOT BE BUTTHURT OR PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE.
See how she interracts. Sounds like shes trying to make you lease the cow first. If she escalates physically, be unreactive. Flip the script and see what she does.

> “Wtf is happening I am so confused? Should I give up on this girl? What did I do wrong? Why no k close on second date but I was able to get a k close on first date? What are my next steps? Should I go for day 3?”

What do you want?

You met some random chick on JewBook and you damned near ended up fucking her in the middle of some random shopping mall?

You had barely known her but for a few hours when she was feeling your erection in public?

Honestly, she’s playing you.

At the end of the first date, she had you trained so well that when she said, “Jump!”, you were already saying, “How high, Master?”

This one is trouble.

Sounds like you’re already emotionally involved and she knows it.

Don’t get any deeper into this unless you are damned certain that she is trustworthy [which she almost certainly isn’t].

Everything I’m reading says that this one is toying with you, and that you are setting yourself up to get burned very very badly by her [particularly since you’re emotionally invested already].

Stay away unless you feel like actually marrying her.

And you shouldn’t go marrying a girl if you can’t be your true self around her because you feel an overwhelming need to pretend to be a “jerk” to try to impress her.

Real civilization (white/western) requires more than just technology and an abundance of food and power. Indeed, those things are simply an *effect* of civilization not the cause.

The cause of civilization is a practical/moral/religious structure that obliges people to be *civil* to each other. To be able to work together and cooperate. At the foundation of this cooperation and civility is a human understanding for each decent man’s *basic* right to be able to reasonably obtain a decent woman and family for himself. And for the indecent men and women to be *severely* and swiftly PUNISHED.

Civilization ends when the indecent bring uncivil socio-sexual conditions (savage/feral) into an established technological society. The indecent want to have their cake and eat it, too.

The beginning of this end is brought about by two things: 1) women’s civic/social rights being made equal to (or greater) than men’s. 2) Influx of blacks, mexicans, arabs, etc. for the cheap labor/votes of the sociopaths

Exactly. If you don’t have a two parent family; if you don’t bring your kids up right; if you have a society that disincentivizes males; if you have the slut-it-up society where women become less better looking and have less to offer – well then you have a collapsing society.

CH, I have read your blogs for a couple of years but never posted. I was born in the UK but am of indian origins and am 30 years old. I guarantee you, that at least in the UK, sociopathy is on the rise because the bankers want it like that. To this end, the older generation become so hedonistic (40-60s) going drinking on the town instead of trying to help the younger generations, it is not surprising that broken marriages and absent adults (who do not behave as such, unlike previous generations) would lead to this outcome.

Also, British women (mostly aimed at Caucasians, but all women do adopt some of these traits) do not select for good guys (I’ve had many good-looking friends who are tall, in shape and with great jobs). No, they used to go for looks and sociopaths. Now, there is a third breed of woman that goes for the most useless men availible because of the woman’s insecurities and her own uselessness; she figures to go for a guy that will not leave nor cheat on her, because he has no other options. So, there is a rise of both useless and sociopathic men over here. Lack of father figures, and woman’s poosy for free are the reasons. There is literally no reason to work for men if women give it out for free. Also, in a purely pro-woman choice environment, no amount of self-improvement helps; sex is purely dependent upon women’s whims, so catering to social aspects and those whims is what gets the girl, not hard work in building a civilization.

Would it be appropriate to throw Michael Vick’s name into the mix? All these chicks attached to the notion of having a dog, but the guy goes to jail for animal cruelty and, in the end, gets a pass. Of course most chicks are drawn in to the whole bad boy mentality. The hamster wheel at work.

The increase is sociopathy and the increase in single parenting are likely correlated. A chart showing the increase in both would be interesting.

My parents divorced when I was a baby, but went back to court over custody issues later on and I got dragged through all that. It really does take a toll on a kid emotionally. You learn to emotionally detach from both parents and mediate between the two. I’m no special case, though. Lots of kids I know with split parents are the same way. It helps in dating, sure, but at the same time, people (family mainly) thinks I’m some kind of monster without compassion because I’m not affected by emotional situations.

What’s interesting is when you meet a partner who’s similar. It’s almost as if they can emotionally relate to your lack of emotion. Current girl I’m seeing is the same as me and it’s pretty nice. There’s no crying over frivolous bullshit or unnecessary drama.

Written by the socialist Joan Walsh, I see. She is simply a prostitute who picks a side that will give her money. That’s all she is. In a fundamentalist society she would write stories praising religious fanaticism. In the Soviet Union she would have written stories praising Stalin and spitting at the millions of “saboteurs” he killed. In a conservative society she would praise the family and call for the killing of sexual whores, her competitors. She is a word prostitute through and through.

“Interpersonal relations” take time and energy; much easier to use state power and draw resources and security away from others, leading to a return to baser instincts for mate selection (youth & beauty for women, thuggishness in males). Virtuous qualities no longer holding any value in a statist society, and get thrown out with the trash…

I wouldn’t be surprised if in a decade the US President is a former MMA fighter – his wife a former lap-dancer. This is the way it seems to be going…

A must watch for sure. The first time I saw it, I found it to be hilarious, but since it’s release I don’t find it at all funny anymore. Mainly because of how rapidly we are advancing towards it’s reality. We won’t need to be cryogenically frozen to see this come to pass.

But isn’t it a fact that “whites” are the most sociopathic of the races ??

sociopathy definitely has a genetic component and it is a component of the European – especially Northern European DNA – likely a part of the ‘Iceman Inheritance’ – i.e. something picked up from the Neanderthals ……..

But isn’t it a fact that “whites” are the most sociopathic of the races ??

sociopathy definitely has a genetic component and it is a component of the European – especially Northern European DNA – likely a part of the ‘Iceman Inheritance’ – i.e. something picked up from the Neanderthals ……..

LOL Here comes the Black leftist again. All Blacks have is “Whites have Neanderthal blood!” Hmm, about eight percent of White, Arab, middle-Asian and East Asian DNA is from the Neanderthals. Meanwhile humans have about 98 percent of DNA in common with apes, does that make us apes?

In fact, humans have 98 percent of DNA in common with rats. Leftist losers don’t understand what DNA is. The vast majority of DNA is inactive. Of the active parts, the vast majority is simply there to produce skin, bones, hair, nails, blood. Much less than 1 percent is of the complicated kind that creates human beings.

Meanwhile, Blacks have 100 percent of their DNA in common with Blacks. Oops. That’s quite a bit more serious than having eight percent of DNA from the humans called Neanderthals. Until Whites raised them, Blacks were on the same level as the Neanderthals, and looked even more primitive – the slanted forehead, the protruding jaw, the teeth that are almost identical to those in apes, etc. (Blacks in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and that area, actually call the Blacks in western Africa “the apes” because of their appearance.) Didn’t even invent the wheel or the sail, and relied on slaves for thousands of years until British, French and other Whites forced them to stop at gunpoint.

As for who is most sociopathic, Whites and East Asians are the cultures who have the most family cohesion and respect for law. Blacks are the ones who had societies where men abandoned the women and the children were roaming free in the village – still do, gangs of feral children are endemic in African cities. And half of all armed conflicts take place in Africa. Which produces only two percent of the world’s GDP. So who is the most sociopathic?

“such hubris” And such refusal on your part to understand basic genetic research. The father of DNA research was fired from the lab where he had been working for decades because the media bosses attacked him relentlessly when he said Blacks had genes that made them less intelligent than other races, as is also shown by all IQ tests on all continents where Blacks live. I believe in him far more than in the leftist media bosses you obviously drool over, like a good leftist follower.

I apologize for comparing the quite developed Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis to Homo Sapiens Monstrosis. (This is what Carl Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy, called the Negro race, which makes it the correct Latin name for said race. He is the guy who came up with “homo sapiens” and the rest in the first place, so it’s his thing, his decision.)

Don’t forget blacks never came up with a written language, thus have no written history.

It was whites who made dictionaries of the very limited African languages that do not even have words such as “promise” ( I have a link but it is too late I am going to bed )

and when Europeans found them they were still living in mud huts, drinking water from the same pond their animals defecated in ( saw it on PBS which is definitely not a right wing “racist” source of information )

And they have been around at least 150,000 years while whites have been around maybe 50,000 years

they still rape young girls because they believe doing so will cure them of AIDS while we make heart transplants and fly rockets to the moon

You’re one of those people who believed them when they said most of DNA was “junk DNA” and really didn’t matter. Careers were made under the fallacy that because we don’t understand what those parts do, they don’t do anything important. All the while we still didn’t understand more than a glimmer of how it all worked together to make a human body. Incredible stupid hubris, unless it succeeds in getting you grants and publications, then it’s very strategic hubris.

But this is not required for your other point, that it’s fair to describe much of what happens in Africa as sociopathic.

History is quite cyclical in this way. The madness of the West is starting to peak and there will be tremendous blowback against non-whites.

But then, at some future time, things will turn right side up again and then all the old tribes will start to splinter along whatever lines they’ve always splintered on and we will turn our weapons upon each other. Nothing new under the sun…

Regarding DNA, this is correct. There have already been significant inroads into the some of the functioning of so called “junk DNA”. But it is not atypical of scientific hubris.

There is the concept in astrophysics of “dark matter” too whereas for a long time space was just ’empty’. At least they have dialed it back a bit and admitted they are not 100% sure of exactly what it is. I am guessing it has a purpose and a function we may simply lack the senses or scientific advancement to even begin to understand.

Dark matter is posited to provide an explanation consistent with our theory of gravity for the deceleration of universe expansion. Stuff seems to be attracted to the other existing stuff more than expected based on the mass of the matter we can observe, much moreso in fact, so we assume there’s a lot of other matter we cannot observe.

So let me get this straight. Research by people who actually work in this field say that a lot of DNA is inactive. And you, a guy with no education in DNA research, say it is “incredible stupid hubris”, basing your statement on nothing.

“Unlicensed drivers in California — the vast majority of whom are illegal immigrants — are nearly three times as likely to cause a fatal crash as licensed drivers, according to a study by the Department of Motor Vehicles.”

““Interpersonal relations” take time and energy; much easier to use state power and draw resources and security away from others, leading to a return to baser instincts for mate selection (youth & beauty for women, thuggishness in males). Virtuous qualities no longer holding any value in a statist society, and get thrown out with the trash…

I wouldn’t be surprised if in a decade the US President is a former MMA fighter – his wife a former lap-dancer. This is the way it seems to be going…”

GOOD POINT: see Ancient Rome – general degradation in quality of leaders and their spouses..

I’ve always found that GC says the most obvious things but taps into popular outrage. He mentions the constitution, how corrupt the politicians are, bla bla bla. More money in the system leads to inflation. Newsflash!

He says it will be a year of extremes. Pretty safe. One year from today, nobody will be able to prove him wrong.

“James Fallon has come to believe that, in addition to particular brain and genetic patterns, there is a third ingredient involved in the development of a violent psychopath. The environment, he explains, can help determine whether violence-related genes and certain brain processes, such as those involving mirror neurons, are triggered towards aggression. Specifically, he believes that abuse – especially severe early childhood sexual, physical or emotional abuse – is instrumental in this process. And he also believes that the precise timing of when various factors come into play is critically important in determining whether one becomes a psychopath and, if so, exactly what type of psychopathological behavior is exhibited.

“As for why he himself is not a violent man, Dr. Fallon credits his upbringing in a highly nurturing environment, in which he was not only not abused, but was showered with wonderfully loving family support.”

Confidence gets you poon. Psychopathology removes the fears of the modern world, thus making you more confident and fearless. Women love this. Think of that douche video-taping the floating bag in American beauty, its the lack of fear and shame. Neurosis is the sign of an unreasonable man and we all know what G.B. Shaw said about unreasonable men. They are the music makers, the movers and shakers, for all the world forever it seems.

I was diagnosed with hypomania with sociopathic tendencies and megalomania in my late twenties (I’m 33 now). I can tell you, I never got more sweet, high quality beav than when I was unmedicated and out of my mind. Got lots of pussy in rehab too; crazy broads and unstable men and all that.

“sociopathy has its privileges. But no nation of sociopaths ever put a man on the moon.” — CH
——————————————————————————————————

I encourage those of you suspicious of the Apollo Moon landings not to be shamed into silence and pro space boosterism. At the very least, the official Apollo moon landing records as provided by NASA are inaccurate; and at worst, a straight up lie.

but if we faked it, why didn’t our mortal cold war enemies, the Ruskies, drop the dime?
—————————————————————————————————-

There are a few possibilities:

1. They are not and have never been “our mortal cold war enemies”. The highest party members got paid off and their form of government made it much easier to sell the hoax to the public. Dissent was/is not tolerated

2. The Soviets new it was not possible at the time, so they “sold the rights” to the moon landings to the United States; while they continued working on what was possible such as long duration LEO flights, unmanned probes…

I suspect this U.S may sell these same rights to China when they make their moon attempt in exchange for not blowing the whistle on us.

3. It advanced the religion of “magical thinking” which all governments engage in to string their populations along on some bullshit that will never work.

Why are the rock samples gathered on the Apollo mission universally acknowledged as being non-terrestrial and why would they fake the moon landing 9 times? How could Observatories detect the retroreflectors on Earth that were installed on the moon by Apollo 15 in 1971?

Why are the rock samples gathered on the Apollo mission universally acknowledged as being non-terrestrial
——————————————————————————————————

MR. B,

It is best to START your analysis raising the questions no one else has asked.

Don’t spend time rehashing the questions you see on the internet, the white man is smart enough to produce elements that don’t even exist naturally in nature; what makes you think he can’t produce “non-terrestrial ” rocks?

For example, why does it take 2 days to get to the I$$ but only 3 days to get to the moon?

or,

Why did the most recent Mars Lander require that complicated contraption to avoid kicking up Martian dust, but the Lunar Module did not?

Or, and here is one I thought up,

In the six sucessful attempt to land on the moon, you never saw any recordings of activities inside the Lunar Module WHILE IT WAS ON THE MOON?

Why not?

Imagine you and your buddy just walked on the moon and then you get back inside the LM and what do you do?

High fives?

Bro hugs?

Look out the windows…

My suspicion is that 1/6th gravity is much more difficult to fake than “zero gravity” and they didn’t think they could pull it off INSIDE THE LUNAR MODULE so they skipped faking that part. For example, the famous “phone call from Nixon” was not recorded inside the LM while it was on the moon.

Why not?

My point is, there are many inconsitencies in the official Apollo record which NASA simply ignores, despite the fact they are the ones who are supposed to have pulled it off.

I admit that most of my “evidence” is behavioral instead of based on the science; but this is how most lies are revealed.

Check out this post Apollo 11 flight press conference and tell me if these 3 white men seem apprehensive and uncomfortable about discussing their great sucess?

I know white men can be uptight, but these ni66as be acting like they stole somethin?

Thwack, good post. I’ve always been suspicious of how they got an aluminum can through the fadiation belt, to the moon and back with post ww2 technology during the middle of a cold war propaganda race and no one has dared to go beyond our upper atmospheric region again. Again, good post.

So because they’re not exuberant enough, that means that the moon landing was faked?

What nonsense.

I’ll admit that they’re not quite as exuberant as you might expect, but that could be due to anything. Anything.

This was right after the landing so they’re pretty exhausted; Armstrong is coming off a flubbed line when he stepped on the moon (“one small step for a man” came out as “one small step for man”) and nobody wants to repeat a gaffe like that with the world watching; NASA could have instructed them not to talk about certain things for fear of giving info to the Soviets; etc., etc.

I can’t believe how hard the Hoax Folks are reaching these days. It’s like they just can’t believe that the Americans of a just-departed age could accomplish something great.

I thought 3 days was about the total time from earth orbit to the moon. 2 days is the total time from the surface of the earth to orbit, synchronizing and docking with the ISS. I am taking your word on the 2 days there. One can travel a lot faster once gravity and atmosphere are much weaker.

LEM didn’t have to maneuver for a long time on the lunar surface, just plop itself down then (leaving behind some framework) blast back off. Hence they didn’t care if dust got on the surface, and after a while the dust would settle down without being continuously churned.

Inside the LEM (sitting on the moon’s surface) the gravity was the same as outside the LEM. So I don’t know what you mean about faking zero grav. vs. 1/8 grav. To get zero grav btw they didn’t need to fake it, just put something in earth orbit and film from there. I’ve seen some film disputing that they were under 1/6 earth gravity while they said they were walking on the moon, it’s a bit overdone (they short-change possible explanations consistent with 1/6 grav.) but there might be something to it.

I don’t know if we did none, some or all the reported lunar missions. But it’s probably not a conversation I would have with a woman I was trying to fuck.

I thought 3 days was about the total time from earth orbit to the moon. 2 days is the total time from the surface of the earth to orbit, synchronizing and docking with the ISS. I am taking your word on the 2 days there.
————————————————————————————————–

Just recently, maybe this year, they docked a Soyuz only 6 hours after blast off. They say this is the fastest they have ever done it.

Now,

they CLAIM the reason it has always taken two days is because you need such an accurate burn and timing that its only been possible with recent advances in engine control, measurment data and communications.

OK.

But, how come it only took 6 or less hours for the Lunar Module to perform the same launch and docking manuver on the moon?

With a lower lower quality engine, less help from mission control, just less capability all around?

On earth there’s also weather to contend with. You have to have good launch weather (I used to live near Canaveral), and then you have to climb out of this giant gravity well and you’re going really fast in earth orbit (or else you have to climb even further to get a slower orbit), then sync and dock.

I assumed this was the reason for slow docking — the weather doesn’t usually concide with the orbit, so you go up whenever you can then synchronize once you’re in orbit yourself.

Everything is easier on the moon. Much less atmosphere = no problems with heat or weather (except for solar timing, which can be planned months ahead of the whole mission), much less gravity to climb out of, much slower orbit to sync with. You can almost see the orbiter coming up over the horizon, then blast off to meet it. Not really but you could do much more visually.

This is my general take too. There -are- some very weird things about the landing. The most glaring of which still has no rebuttal by NASA, unlike many of the others.

That is— the most important and historic telemetry tape in history “accidentally” got recorded over. The telemetry data from the 1st moon landing should be in the Smithsonian right? Nah, some B level engineer just decided to record something else on it. Right…

So that shit is pretty flimsy from the supposedly smartest dudes in the business (at that time) in space exploration.

They probably added some puff propaganda to the whole thing, this would not be surprising.

But be sure about one thing, lunar landers are on the moon. Our telescopes today are an order of magnitude more powerful than the 60s and several large telescopic arrays have been pointed at the moon. You can literally, see the landing rig and equipment from several of the missions. And these are not images that were shot by the US Gub’mint. They are from various countries.

For me, it’s always been the radiation and the temperatures involved. Like Thwack said, you gotta have thick thick lead shields and I’ve personally seen the astronaut suits. They’re not suited to protect against the lack of atmosphere and the radiation of the lunar surface. If we did in fact go to the moon, the Apollo missions had nothing to do with it.

Alright then Greg, explain to me how it works, because if I’m wrong I wanna know. The last time the shuttle reached around 350 miles from sea level the astronauts on board reported seeing flashes of light when they’re eyes were closed, the radiation streaking across their retinas, with nasa concluding over exposure would be very dangerous. How was it done during Apollo? How did they survive the trip through the radiation and how did they stand on the lunar surface? They should have been baked alive in their little capsule as the radiation slowly heated up the lander moment by moment. There’s alot of name calling and dismissal of thought deemed incorrect on this board and I’m flat out sick of the shit.
I don’t give a goddamn about being percieved as thinking correctly, I want answers. If anyone can show where I’m wrong, then do it and we can move on.

Post got eaten by moderation.
Long story short, the dismissal of contrary points of view on this board is getting old, the same sht I got annoyed with when talking to Matt king.
If you can show where and why what I said was wrong, then do it.
I don’t give a gddmn about how well constructed the verbiage of a post is or how many levels someone believes their rhetorical ability over someone else is, I want answers.
Show me how the Apollo astronauts made it to the moon when they should have been cooked alive inside the capsule by the radiation, without any feminine snark or don’t reply at all, and that goes for anyone.

For me, it’s always been the radiation and the temperatures involved. Like Thwack said, you gotta have thick thick lead shields
———————————————————————————–

Objection your honor

Thats here-say, my client never said that!

Judge: sustained

This lead radiation shielding meme is something that got started and took off like a rocket. Its nonsense. Any radiation shielding would have to be at least dual purpose. Water would work just fine; yes its is heavy, but since you are going to need it anyway, you might as well use it for the shielding too. Matter of fact all your urine and feces would probably serve the same purpose.

NOBODY is carrying tons of lead into orbit at $10,000 a pound as radiation shielding.

Lets put a stop to this silly meme.

BTW– NASA did not need the Saturn 5 and the Soviets definately did not need the N-1 for a moon shot. Why? Because once docking manuvers were mastered, two or three Saturn 1-Bs could have placed all the necessary hardware into orbit for an attempt on the moon. And the Soviets had a very reliable vehicle in the Soyuz, so why did they spend time and money trying to perfect the 30 main engine plumbing nightmare known as the N-1?

Send your command module up on one, your LM up on another, dock them and send the 3rd for trans lunar injection.

It sounds like a complex process, but I suspect its a lot less than designing, building and testing a brand new heavy lift vehicle. Some people suspect the Saturn 5 was basically empty and that the exhaust was designed to look impressive to the novice, but that its was actually inefficient because of the amount of flame.

Compare the exhausts of the Saturn 5, the Soyuz and the Space shuttle.

Wait wait wait, I thought you said shielding for the radiation was needed. If i misread and you didn’t say that then I’m saying it.
You’ve gotta provide protection from uninhibited solar radiation inside the capsule and on the surface, and to my knowledge the capsule and the standard suit provide none of that. Theres also no cooling whatsoever save for a small inner lander air circulator and a water based battery operated cooling system In the suit. Both the suit and the capsule would heat up like a convection cooking pot and burn everyone inside alive taking on that much solar radiation.

Long story short, the dismissal of contrary points of view on this board is getting old, the same sht I got annoyed with when talking to Matt king.
If you can show where and why what I said was wrong, then do it.

Dismissal of mere nonsense is often best done as radio silence or short-barbed mockery.

The reason being is, there is already so much evidence out there that the Apollo missions did indeed land on the moon that any time and effort spent here in reiteration of those facts would go ignored anyway, so why bother?

The same ol’ same tripe would again surface a few weeks from now on another thread.

Note that the above radio silence or mockery gambit applies to a lot of the Cathedral litany and usual suspect cogdissery that often rear their heads here.

Regarding radiation: I’ve seen the story that nothing could get thru the van Allen belts alive, but from what else I’ve read that’s simply untrue, the radiation is not that much and you could pass thru relatively quickly. Patriarch has another objection, as I understand it that just the ambient solar radiation outside earth’s atmosphere would cook you from the inside and also heat up your space suit and parboil you.

Yet the earth itself, with all its greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, doesn’t get too hot for human life despite billions of years of exposure to solar radiation. It’s in a temperature equilibrium. If that’s possible for the earth, I think it should be possible for an astronaut inside a space suit too.

Regarding radiation: I’ve seen the story that nothing could get thru the van Allen belts alive, but from what else I’ve read that’s simply untrue,
————————————————————————————————
FamilyMan, I agree; radiation BEYOND low Earth orbit is not an insurmountable obstacle for manned space flight, but the hazzards must be dealt with and my suspicion is it requires a larger more robust vehicle than the Apollo hardware.

Space, even LEO is just not a healthy enviroment for humans; despite all the compensatory behaviors they engage in while orbiting. Have you noticed you don’t see much of the astronauts after the return from the I$$?

Thats because they fucked up like football bats; they can’t even stand for more than a minute without having a stroke, or redding out like a fighter pilot pulling Gs…

Its quite possible that the 1st successful mission to Mars may result in the Astronauts dieing right when they get back to Earth.

Imagine the worst hangover you’ve ever had; now increase it by a factor of 4.

The “magical thinking” space community don’t tell you about that part.

Keep in mind that the atmosphere and the magnetosphere of the Earth work to deflect a necessary majority of the solar radiation, a necessary ingredient for the evolution of cellular life. Contrary to popular belief, space itself is not cold per say. Temperature is merely the level of excitement of the particles within an object exposed to radiation. It’s the same principle at work within a thermos, the insulating property of a near vacuum. According to a proper interpretation of thermodynamics, the capsule should absorb radiation via the solar wind outside of the magnetosphere/radiation belt and slowly begin to heat up by atomic vibration until the occupants burn to death. If you’re aware of a way that the module and space suit protect against this, let me know.

If you’re aware of a way that the module and space suit protect against this, let me know.
—————————————————————————————————–

I don’t know, but I suspect the answer has to be based on some basic law of physics. Like you said, “space” itself has no temperature, only mass does. Therefore, radiation is probably the #1 choice for EXTERIOR temperature control on any space craft (paint everything white…)

But that still leaves the problem of internal heat generation, how do you get rid of it. I think the answer is by using a molecular medium; a stored collection of slow moving molecules surrounding a heat exchanger containing the “heat” generated from the inside of the space craft. Once these slow moving molecules get sped up (heated) they are then expelled from the craft. The only problem is you need a steady supply of slow moving molecules to serve as your medium to take heat away.

You can’t get it from space so where do you get it from?

Its not as big of a problem in orbit because every 90 minutes the sun is blocked by the Earth and the vehicle can cool. But from the Earth to the moon, then sitting on the moon, its like a permanent cook cycle. Machines can be designed to take high temps, but a human will start sweating and then talking to himself if it gets too hot:

” a hippoty hop, Obama mamma jamma, abone all the people say, sweet home alabama…”

What?

Huh?

what?

This is why I thought it was weird in the Apollo 13 movie when they said they had to conserve power and it got freezing cold; was the sun not shining on them? thru the windows?

You really only have 3 tools to work with when it comes to temperature:

Radiation

Convection

and Conduction

Since the sun is always shining, reflecting and blocking it seems like two ways to control temperature build up.

After that, seems like you need to let something get hot, and then get rid of it into space to take the heat with it? Like a medium?

So,

my suspicion is, each space suit contains a reservoir of slow moving molecules that is sped up by heat generated and exchanged in the suit which is then expelled into space?

Sure, its an “air conditioner”, but it still requires a “medium” to dump into space which cannot be recovered from space.

How big of a problem is it to carry your own “medium?” And if you run out, where do you get more?

Plus Thwack,
I’d sure like to know how they protected the photographic film from the radiation of the moon itself. Take a look at the film quality from the Fukashima clusterfuck and then review the crystal clarity of the Apollo photos.

I’m fine with the crackpots and the conspirazoids as long as you put an oar in when and where it matters. But now you’re spooking me out.

If you can’t even wield Occam’s razor on this one, as Greg suggests above, then what can you apply it to?

Oh well, I suppose this is the kind of company one must make peace with on the margins, where talk of real conspiracies blend with the others, where it is safe to speak truth among the discounted noise.

But can we all pledge to destroy feminism before we break out the moonbats? And when we get the enemy to their surrender parley, let me do the talking.

I don’t know why people have the assumption that those in power authority have a more difficult time perpetrating a fraud. Its easier. I also notice that most people tend to engage in dichotomies as if there is are not many possibilities. I’d be surprised if there was no propaganda of some sort for NASA . I suspect that they may have made publicity photos. This is done all the time.

“Huili officials hover over a highway project ”

But then on the other side of it this is no proof that there was no lunar landing.

Speaking of resistance to social evil, skepticism and logical thinking is important. I always assume that my government is lying until proven otherwise.

I’ll tell you exactly why. NASA is a public entity, a government bureau that employs hundreds of people. With all the time, effort, and money that went into this “conspiracy”, you don’t think just one of those lowly, underpaid employees wouldn’t have spilled the beans in the decades afterwards?

My father worked for a similar government organization. When he received a big promotion, he was always told to keep it quiet until the official announcement came out. He was never a big-talker, so he wouldn’t say anything. But the secretaries found out first. Usually by the time my Dad walked back to his office, his entire division knew all about the promotion. That’s a mid-level promotion for a random government employee. You’re talking about a massive conspiracy involving hundreds of people with the whole world potentially interested.

If it were true, it would have been publicly debunked before any of us on this message board were born.

when the great white hunter is going on “Safari” in Africa, do all the negro porters need to know where they are going, and what the purpose of the “safari” is in order to carry their load? Do they even know what they are really carrying other than its weight?

Consider this; if you were in charge of Apollo 11 and were told you only had a 50% chance of mission success, would you risk it knowing that failure might mean your money gets cut off?

Would you risk it considering neither the Challenger nor Columbia crews knew they had a catastrophic problem until it was too late to say anything? In other words, the ONLY reason we know what happened is because they both happened here on Earth. What if Apollo 11 had entered the far side of the moon and simply never emerged?

HOW can you get more money to try again if you don’t know what happened?

Lie about it?

(BTW, I suspect at least one person at NASA knew Columbia was fucked from launch but they decided to hide it from the crew since there was nothing they could do about it)

Whats my point?

Its better to fake the first landing and protect your funding, than to fuck up the 1st time and give your enemies ammo to cut your funding.

Even today, the different contractors and branches of the military inflate the performance of their weapons systems in order maintain the funding for them.

Greg, the U-2 incident is the one example I know of where the president of the United States, in collusion with various government agencies (including NASA) lied to the American people; indeed the entire world;

Four days after Powers disappeared, NASA issued a very detailed press release noting that an aircraft had “gone missing” north of Turkey.[3] The press release speculated that the pilot might have fallen unconscious while the autopilot was still engaged, even falsely claiming that “the pilot reported over the emergency frequency that he was experiencing oxygen difficulties.” To bolster this, a U-2 plane was quickly painted in NASA colors and shown to the media. Under the impression that the pilot had died and that the plane had been destroyed, the Americans decided to use the NASA cover up plan.[17]

Greg, as long as you are willing to believe a lie, why don’t you inhale these dicks too:

1. The check is in the mail
2. Black is beautiful
3. I won’t cum in your mouf

Oh shit yo, I be walking thru the hood sometime and I see all the real thug brothas gettin all the pussy and lonely ole me with no pussy whatsoever. Definitely the case that society is becoming more sociopathic, beta black males of my fathers generation got laid, beta blacks of mine dont.

“In other words, in America, the guiltless manipulation of other people “blends” with social expectations …”

And as Jefferson said:
“Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

This may explain why some people put up with so much crap from sociopathic politicians. While the screws are being turned on them – the more they move away from civic responsibilities, i.e. voting and other forms of civic participation aimed at increasing accountability and getting the bums out of office.

“Within this atomized, unraveled milieu, sociopaths thrive. They thrive not only because any communitarian brakes on their behavior are removed, but also because the culture begins to value and exalt the very special talents of the sociopath. This is an unavoidable transition when people feel unmoored from a larger social family, and adopt a pathologically individualist “look out for #1″ attitude to life in response to the vague but palpably ominous threat of rainbow fauxalitions.”

So, the sociopath is elevated, even glorified.

Helps explain why “The Godfather’ was so popular and why Hillary Clinton has a good chance of being elected President.

OT: Another case of an extremely wealthy white lady making astoundingly poor decisions.

Heiress Nedenia Post Dye was stabbed to death at a Caribbean resort by her drug-addicted black-musician fuck toy. Just last year she confided with a college alumni magazine that she had a love of “risk-taking and adventure.”

Went to a local sports bar this past Monday. Before red pill if I went to a bar, I’d see all other guys as potential people I may need to fight, or competition for girls, and see the girls and think to just stand at the bar and act cool and eventually a girl would notice and initiate a conversation, or I would if I was drunk enough. LAME! (I can’t believe I actually got laid as much as I did not knowing all the red pill shit I do today). Anyway, today, anytime I go out I’m actively seeking conversation openings with men and women just to be more damn social. I’d like to share two methods I thought of that I think are pretty good. Heartiste and YaReally, let me know what you think.

When you see someone getting shots lined up at the bar – Saw this wealthy-looking middle-aged dude order a line of shots for him and several of his buddies. They had the look of successful rich Jewish guys out letting loose over a big business deal or something. Game immediately kicked in and made me think to say, “Damn, I’m in the wrong social circle, adopt me, man!” The guy instantly liked the comment and offered me one. We shot the shit for a bit with me telling him how lame my office has become recently and how I wish the dudes at work genuinely let loose like he and his buddies did. He told me when they usually visit that bar and I told him I’ll look out for him next time. Cool interaction. Now, this person ordering the line of shots could just as easily have been a bachelorette party girl so I think it has potential to open any set.

When you see a group of people wearing the same college shirts – Later I saw a group of people that all had on the same college gear. They were at the bar to watch their college bowl game. A couple of the girls were cute (much cuter than the coworker dude I was sitting with), so I simply wanted to talk to them. The guys were all athletic looking. I said to the one guy, “You guys went to X college, huh?” He responded, “Yeah.” I said, “You know the one thing I hate about that college?” He asked what. I said, “Those fuckers waitlisted me. Heard it was a great party school too.” That was the in. I told them about the other party school that I went to that was much colder and we shot the shit. He introduced me to the girls and the rest of the group. Cool interaction. Never would have done that shit before. Now, did I actually get waitlisted to that school? Hell no, but does it really matter? I met some new people which gave me value and entertainment for the night and I made them laugh a few times which gave them value. Win win.

Game is a trip. Thank you Heartiste, YaReally and the rest of the sphere for opening my eyes. This New Years, I’m making it my goal to open one person each day for the entire year.

Psychopaths aren’t exiting cads. They have no conscience and they are incapable of love. Some have a superficial charm, but they quickly creep out most men and women. Only the truly disturbed fall of them – think Manson and his “family.”

A psychopath named Dale Anderson (who is unattractive) strangled to death a tiny woman I worked with. He murdered a pregnant woman. He threw a woman he had strangled on the side of the road. He got a hard-on over these things, which happens with all murderous psychopaths. When the police were investigating him, he ran and hid behind his wife.

I was raised with these people – murderers and rapists. That’s the violent ones. The non-violent ones are rarely successful in life unless they’re parasites on the productive.

They are not warriors. They are cowards. They are not protectors and providers, even the non-violent. And they cannot be explained by evolutionary theory, no matter how hard people twist the facts to fit their pet theories..

[…] cheaters, people who betray their friends, family, and anyone); btw, CH has a great post on how sociopathy is on the rise in the US, perhaps from warped mate selection criteria * Glib, quick comebacks, says things confidently […]

Early Christianity was a hostile, Jewish subversion and overthrow of the dominant Greco-Roman culture of the Roman Empire. Alexandria was a Jewish stronghold like NYC. Philo of Alexandria was like a Karl Marx, and the Essenes/Therapeuts was comparable to the Frankfurt School. Here I will give a brief, general history of what we know today as Christianity.

20 BCE – 50 CE. Alexandria, the Roman Empire

There existed many Jewish monasteries that enjoyed much in funding, connections, and influence. Most notable of these where the Essenes and the Therapeuts, among whom Philo of Alexandria✡ set to create a philosophy/religion that would deliver Gentiles into a Judaic monotheism. They understood that those who held the keys to a monotheistic god would dominate in religion and culture (Protocol of Zion #14). They set to engineer what was to become the hostile overthrow the long-standing Greco-Roman culture & its gods who were to be replaced by the Jewish tribal god Yahweh✡.

The Greek title of “Christos” was lifted to name the god of the new religion, whose story is a composite of previous existing pagan gods. Research “religious parallelism.”

Christian theology materialized at the School of Alexandria. In this city rose the early churches, composed of both Jews and of Greeks. Saint Stephen✡, Saul of Tarsus✡, and Apollos✡ were most influential in propagating early Christianity. Early Christians were denying & profaning established traditions, angering Romans and conservative Jews, creating lasting religious tensions.

Many years later, 325 CE, Roman Emperor Constantine I convened the Council of Nicaea to solidify one universal religion to unite the Empire. By 380 CE, Nicene Christianity was declared the official Roman religion by ✡-puppet Emperor Theodosius. All Paganism was suppressed and outlawed.

In 391 CE, Coptic Pope Theophilus ordered an attack that destroyed the temples and libraries of the Serapeum massacring the priests. The institutional structure of Egyptian religion, then more than four millennia old, was demolished in less than two decades.

Many Christian churches are built directly overtop pagan sacred sites. Thousands were murdered to secure hegemony of the new religion. Among the values of the religion are that you are to be poor in spirit, meek, and/or merciful in order to be blessed. Read The Beatitudes and understand their subversive nature as intended by the Essenes and Therapeuts. With this philosophy, they have convinced its followers to turn the other cheek, love their enemies, and do good to those who hate them. Who benefits?

Religions of our ancestors were replaced by this slave morality of humility, meekness, and poverty.

That is the story of Christianity: a Jewish hijacking of our spirituality.

This blog advocates some (rather brutish) combination of racism, altruism (deference to the group) xenophobia (anti-immigration) and anti-capitalism (he hates rich people because they are allegedly the cause of social ills like feminism) all at once.

He makes his real views all the more obvious with each post. He builds a case against himself. He contradicts himself.

A compilation of boys going crazy, boys acting like boys, complete and utter disdain of the male sex, and the solution? More feminist nonsense apparently. I’ve got a few dozen pounds of popcorn…I plan to eat it all as I watch the whole of this shithole of a world burn down around me.

“What you’re almost onto is this – women entering male spaces has pathologised them by bring sexual selection into a space previously free from that stress. ‘Sexual selection’ before the 60’s was mostly kept out of mainstream society – a woman and a man who would marry usually first met through family, not in a ‘public space’ setting where both sexes had free range. In any situation where sex outside marriage isn’t considered shameful and where men and women congregate together – you’re going to have thi “Beta/Alpha” dichotomy emerge and it’s supremely dehumansing. This is why introverted males are no longer taking part in society, they’re dropping at every point – from highschool to college to the workplace, each has become more a ‘bisex’ space, these introverted males no longer have anywhere to be themselves, to be productive – without having their sexual status constantly rubbed in their faces – so you have an increase in homosexuality, in transexuals, in ‘sissys’, ‘cuckfags’, etc. The only way this is going to be turned back is by re-establishment of patriarchy, of sexual monogamy, and sex-segregation (primarily through pushing women back into the home).”

[…] As Robert Putnam has discovered, ethnic and racial diversity reduces trust and social cohesion. Radically heterogeneous societies lose their aura of connectedness. Within this atomized, unraveled milieu, sociopaths thrive. They thrive not only because any communitarian brakes on their behavior are removed, but also because the culture begins to value and exalt the very special talents of the sociopath. This is an unavoidable transition when people feel unmoored from a larger social family, and adopt a pathologically individualist “look out for #1″ attitude to life in response to the vague but palpably ominous threat of rainbow fauxalitions. https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/sociopathy-is-increasing-in-america/ […]

I hate these fucking articles(http://ranprieur.com/readings/americanpsycho.html) that talk about how Eastern cultures “respect the interconnectedness of all living things”. This isn’t 200 AD, anyone who’s seen the unbelievable levels of environmental pollution in East Asia today would laugh at the idea of these people respecting life in any meaningful way. Their traditions are even deader than ours.

[…] stone house to the woods out back, in a dark place where demons play. And when one ponders the changing nature of the empire within which CH is embedded, it should not surprise to stumble upon these demons at the foul climax […]